,    K:fi 


cr, 
oc 


C5 

C.7 


LI  BRARY 

OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

GIKT    OK 


,     tyr-  1 
Received 
^J  ccessions  No.  &3L  f..  0> 


Shelf  No 


o. 


MEDIUM  THEORY 


OF     THE 


ATONEMENT, 


AND 


REVIEW  OF  DR.  BURNEY'S  SOTERIOLOGY. 


BY  REV.  G.  H.  SHELDRAKE, 

MAYFIELD,  KENTUCKY. 


Without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission. — Paul. 
Ye  must  be 


;NN.: 

CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIAN  PUBLISHING  HOUSE. 

1888. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1888, 

BY  REV.  G.  H.  SHELDRAKE, 
In  the  office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


TO  THE 

HONORABLE  LUCIEN  ANDERSON, 

OF    MAYFIELD,    KENTUCKY, 

TO    WHOM    IS    DUE    MUCH     FOR    WARM    PERSONAL 

FRIENDSHIP,   AND  WHO   FOR  YEARS   HAS 

BEEN     A   MOST     ZEALOUS     AND 

CONSECRATED  MEMBER 

OF     THE 

CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH,   UPHOLDING    HER   DOCTRINE 

AND    SUPPORTING    HER    CAUSE,    THIS    MODEST 

ATTEMPT  TO  GIVE  FORM  AND  EXPRESSION 

TO     HER     MEDIUM     THEOLOGY 

IS     MOST 

RESPECTFULLY  AND  AFFECTIONATELY 
DEDICATED. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE vi. 

CHAPTER    I.— INTRODUCTION 1 

SEC.  1.  Theories  of  the  Atonement 2 

2.  Historical  Sketch 7 

3.  Definitions 14 

PART  I.— THE  NECESSITY  FOR  AN  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER    II. — THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD     ....;..  25 

SEC.  1.  God  a  Spirit,  Not  Material 25 

2.  Mental  Conceptions  of  God  Inadequate      ....  27 

3.  God  Not  Limited 29 

4.  Bible  Representations  Real 30 

5.  The  Holiness  of  God 31 

6.  The  Righteousness  of  God 35 

7.  The  Jealousy  of  God 37 

III.— SIN  AND  PENALTY 40 

SEC.  1.  Sin  as  Depravity 40 

2.  Sin  as  Transgression 50 

3    Consequence  and  Penalty 52 

4.  Death 54 

IV.— RESTITUTION  OR  RETRIBUTION 71 

SEC.  1.  Restitution  the  Ground  of  Penalty 71 

2.  God's  Vengeance  and  Penalty 77 

3.  God's  Judgment  and  Penalty 79 

4.  Penalty  a  Positive  Infliction 80 

PART  II.— THE  NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER       V.— THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST 84 

SEC.  1.  The  Humanity  of  Christ 86 

2.  The  Divinity  and  Penalty 91 

3.  The  Divinity  and  Righteousness 97 

VI.— THE  SPIRIT  BAPTISM 103 

SEC.  1.  What  is  the  Spirit  Baptism? 104 

2.  What  are  the  Results  of  It  ? 109 

VII.— THE  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT 115 

SEC.  1.  Propitiation .120 

2.  Substitution 126 

VIII.— THE  OFFERINGS     .    ,    . 134 

SEC.  1.  The  Burnt-offering 138 

2.  The  Peace-offering 145 

3.  The  Sin-offering 147 

4.  The  Trespass-offering 151 

IX.— THE  BLOOD 157 

SEC.  1.  Abel's  Sacrifice 157 

2.  The  Offering  of  Isaac 159 

3.  The  Blood  .                            ....                  .    .  160 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER      X.— REDEMPTION 170 

SEC.  1.  The  Year  of  Jubilee 170 

2.  The  Goel,  or  Redeemer 172 

3.  The  Firstling  of  an  Ass 174 

4.  Redemption  by  Purchase 176 

5.  Redemption  by  Power 180 

6.  The  Passover  and  the  Sea 181 

PART  III.— THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

CHAPTER      XI.— ELECTION 185 

SEC.  1.  The  Ninth,  Tenth,  and  Eleventh  of  Romans  .    .  187 

2.  Predestination 192 

3.  Election  and  Spirit  Baptism -198 

XII. — DIVINE  INFLUENCE 202 

SEC.  1.  Inability 203 

2.  Saving  Faith 206 

XIII.— THE  NEW  BIRTH 214 

SEC.  1.  Born  of  the  Flesh 217 

2.  Born  of  the  Spirit 219 

3.  The  Two  Natures  in  Conflict      .  * 222 

4.  The  Nature  of  the  Change 228 

XIV.— FEET  WASHING 233 

SEC.  1.  Eph.  v.  26 233 

2.  John  xiii 234 

3.  Confession 24o 

XV.— SONSHIP     ..'....» 248 

SEC.  1.  Who  are  Sons? 243 

2.  An  Eternal  Relation 245 

3.  Founded  on  Birth 246 

4.  A  Loving  Relation 251 

5.  Heirship 252 

XVI.— PRESERVATION  OF  THE  SAINTS 254 

SEC.  1.  Arminian  Texts  Examined 255 

2.  Spirit  Baptism  and  Perseverance 263 

PART  IV.— REVIEW  OF  DR.  BURNEY  ON  SOTERIOLOGY. 

CHAPTER    XVII.— BURNEY  ON  LAW -266 

XVIII.— BURNEY  ON  PENALTY • 279 

XIX. — BURNEY  ON  NATURAL  AND  BIBLE  ATONEMENT    .    .    .  287 

XX. — BURNEY  ON  THE  OFFERINGS 320 

XXL— BURNEY  ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST 333 

XXII.— BURNEY'S  OBJECTIONS  TO  SUBSTITUTION 352 

XXIII. — BURNEY  ON  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  TRINITY.  366 

XXIV.— MISCELLANEOUS 383 

SEC.  1.  Burney  on  the  Prodigal  Son 383 

2.  Burney  on  the  Offering  of  Isaac 385 

3.  Bnrney  on  the  Prayer  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross    .  388 

4.  Burney  on  Contrast  of  Penal  and  Non-penal 

Theories 391 

5.  Burney  on  Salvation  of  Infants 396 

6.  Burney,  Non-penal  Theory  in  Harmony  with 

Science .402 


PREFACE. 


For  many  years  past  there  has  been  a  revival  of  Bible 
study  throughout  Christendom,  going  hand  in  hand 
with  earnest  work  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Largely 
through  the  work  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian 
Association,  and  prominent  evangelists,  such  as  Moody 
and  Whittle,  this  movement  to  make  the  Bible  better 
understood  is  growing  in  power.  Conferences  for 
Bible  study  have  been  held,  attended  by  eager  crowds. 
"  Bible  Readings  "  have  become  general  in  the  churches, 
and  as  the  movement  advances,  the  rich  spiritual  treas- 
ures of  the  Word  are  being  unfolded,  so  that  many 
thousands  are  led  to  love  the  Scriptures  as  never  be- 
fore. 

This  book  is  an  effort  to  give  more  formal  expres- 
sion to  the  great  Bible  truths  that  have  been  unfolded 
in  the  progress  of  this  movement.  Truths  that  are 
being  proclaimed  from  hundreds  of  pulpits  in  almost 
every  denomination,  and  that  are  sung  wherever 
"Gospel  Hymns"  are  used. 

Having  for  years  read  all  books,  tracts,  and  "  Reports 
of  Bible  Conferences "  that  throw  light  upon  "  the 
truth,"  it  would  be  difficult  to  give  due  credit  for  expo- 
sitions of  Scripture  that  may  be  found  in  this  book  that 
have  been  advanced  before.  But  we  claim  for  the  the- 
ory of  the  atonement,  as  such,  that  it  is  new. 

We  submit  it  to  Bible  students  as  an  effort  to 
present  from  a  Bible  stand-point  a  view  of  the  atone- 


viii  PREFACE. 

ment  free  from  the  objections  of  the  past.  We  trust 
it  will  lead  to  a  greater  unity  in  the  church,  and  the 
removal  of  many  obstacles  in  the  way  of  honest  in- 
quirers. 

We  had  finished  the  manuscript  of  the  three  first 
Parts  when  Dr.  Burney's  book  was  published.  We 
have  reviewed  this  in  Part  IV.,  as  by  so  doing  it  makes 
the  work  more  complete. 

The  Christian  world  has  been  divided  into  three 
great  divisions,  or  schools  of  thought.  These,  in  mod- 
ern days,  are  known  as  Calvinist,  Arminian,  and 
Socinian. 

Dr.  Burney's  theory  is  a  medium  theory,  but  it  occu- 
pies (theologically)  ground  mid-way  between  Armin- 
ianism  and  Socinianism.  It  is,  really,  semi-Socin- 
ianism.  • 

The  theory  of  this  book  is  medium  as  between  Cal- 
vinism and  Arminianism.  A  medium  Evangelical 
theory  of  the  Atonement. 

While  the  whole  work  is  essential  to  the  full  develop- 
ment of  the  theory,  Chapters  III.,  V.,  VI.,  VII.,  and 
X.,  present  what  is  distinctive. 

And  now  this  bark,  which  was  built  and  freighted 
in  an  atmosphere  of  prayer,  is  launched  with  the  ear- 
nest petition  that  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  will 
use  such  truth  as  it  may  contain  for  his  own  glory  and 
the  extension  of  his  kingdom. 

G.   H.    SHELDRAKE. 
August,  1888. 


ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  the  great  cen- 
tral truth  of  the  Bible,  around  which  all  other 
truths  revolve,  as  our  solar  system  does  around  the 
sun. 

It  certainly  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
indifference  what  we  believe  about  it,  because  it 
affects  the  question  of  the  divine  attributes,  the 
Person  of  Christ,  the  nature  and  result  of  the  fall, 
the  character  of  law  and  penalty,  the  conditions  of 
salvation,  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Un- 
soundness  as  to  the  atonement  leads  to  error  in  all 
the  vital  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  in  exact  pro- 
portion to  the  unsoundness.  It  seems  to  be  the 
opinion  of  some  that  it  matters  but  little  what 
"theories"  are  held,  so  long  as  Christ  is  looked  to 
as  the  Savior.  But  this  is  to  ignore  things  of  the 
first  importance.  Error  as  to  the  atonement  may 
be  so  great  as  to  be  utterly  incompatible  with 
salvation,  leading  men  to  self-reliance  and  the  re- 
jection of  a  Savior.  Thus  it  may  lead  directly  to 
the  soul's  loss.  This  is  not  true,  however,  of  any 
* '  theory ' '  that  leads  or  requires  men  to  trust  in 
2 


2  ATONEMENT. 

Christ.  But  it  may,  and  does,  lead  indirectly  to  the 
ruin  of  the  souls  of  men,  by  robbing  the  preaching 
of  the  cross  of  its  spirituality  and  power. 

It  is  true  that  in  every  age  the  men  who  have 
been  largely  instrumental  in  leading  men  to  Christ 
have  preached  strongly  the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious 
atonement.  The  simple  story  of  Christ's  love  in 
suffering — the  just  for  the  unjust — has  been  the 
power  of  God  to  salvation.  To  modify,  or  render 
unmeaning,  the  preaching  of  the  cross,  is  infallibly 
to  lessen  its  vitality  and  attractive  power.  So  that, 
indirectly,  error  may  be  fatal  to  the  welfare  of  souls. 
Indifference  to  error,  here,  is  criminal. 

Again,  the  connection  between  a  man's  doctrine 
and  walk  is  such  that  all  error  tends  to  destroy 
spirituality  and  weaken  the  testimony  of  the  Church. 

In  this  work  we  shall  discuss  the  atonement  from 
the  Bible  stand-point  mainly,  the  Bible  being  our 
standard  of  authority.  We  believe  that  it  sets  forth 
a  vicarious  atonement,  that  from  Genesis  to  Revela- 
tion this  is  the  one  glorious  truth  that  gives  beauty 
and  vitality  to  its  teaching. 

Before  entering  upon  our  argument  we  will  pre- 
sent in  this  chapter  an  outline  of  the  principal  the- 
ories of  the  atonement,  a  brief  historical  sketch  of 
the  development  of  these  theories,  and  some  defini- 
tions. 

SECTION  I. — Theories  of  the  Atonement. 

It  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  work  to 
enter  upon  an  examination  of  all  the  theories  that 
have  originated  in  the  fertile  brains  of  men  for  the 
last  nineteen  centuries.  Many  of  them  have  long 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

since  died  a  natural  death,  like  the  theory  of  Mar- 
cion,  who  held  that  Christ's  sufferings  were  divine, 
but  not  real. 

As  most  of  the  early  fathers  combat  the  heresy  of 
Marcion,  some  even  writing  extensive  treatises 
against  him,  we  have  a  full  exposition  of  his  theory. 
He  denied  that  the  Incarnation  was  real,  holding 
that  Christ  was  manifested  in  appearance  only. 

"  Marcion,  in  order  that  he  might  deny  the  flesh 
of  Christ,  denied  also  his  nativity,  because,  of 
course,  he  was  afraid  that  his  nativity  and  his  flesh 
bore  mutual  testimony  to  each  other's  reality,  since 
there  is  no  nativity  without  flesh,  and  no  flesh  with- 
out nativity At  all  events,  he  who  repre- 
sented the  flesh  of  Christ  to  be  imaginary  was 
equally  able  to  pass  off  his  nativity  as  a  phantom; 
so  that  the  virgin's  conception,  and  pregnancy,  and 
child-bearing,  and  then  the  whole  course  of  her  in- 
fant, too,  would  have  to  be  regarded  as  putative." 
(Tertullian,  "On  the  flesh  of  Christ,"  Chapter  I.) 

It  follows,  that  his  body  being  unreal,  his  suffer- 
ings and  death  existed  in  appearance  only;  the 
whole  being  but  a  symbolic  representation  that  men 
must  die  to  earthly  life  to  be  redeemed,  hence  the 
extreme  aesthetic  character  of  the  life  he  demanded 
of  his  followers. 

Omitting  such  theories  as  these,  and  dealing  only 
with  those  that  are  current  in  our  day,  we  would 
group  them  into  three  great  divisions :  The  Moral 
Influence,  Governmental,  and  Vicarious.  There  are 
various  modifications  of  these,  but  practically  they 
may  be  so  classified. 

The  Moral  Influence  theory  represents  the  work 


4  ATONEMENT. 

of  Christ  as  affecting  the  sinner  alone.  It  denies 
that  the  work  of  Christ  in  any  way  influenced  God, 
its  design  being  to  reconcile  man  to  God,  not  God 
to  man. 

The  Governmental  theory  also  holds  that  the 
atonement  affects  the  sinner,  and  not  God,  but 
teaches,  in  addition,  that  it  was  demanded  by  the 
needs  of  moral  government.  As  failure  to  enforce 
law  leads  to  anarchy,  while  punishment  deters  from 
crime  and  strengthens  the  government,  the  death 
of  Christ  was  demanded  by  this  governmental 
need. 

The  Vicarious  theory,  which  has  been,  and  is, 
the  almost  universal  faith  of  Christendom,  teaches 
that  while  the  death  of  Christ  influences  the  sinner 
and  strengthens  government,  it  first  of  all  was  nec- 
essary to  meet  the  demands  of  God  against  the  sin- 
ner. Its  advocates  teach  that  until  that  demand 
was  met  and  satisfied,  man  could  not  be  saved. 
They  hold  that  Christ  meets  and  satisfies  this  de- 
mand for  us — in  our  place — as  our  substitute,  so 
that  God  can  "be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him 
which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

All  theories  that  limit  the  effect  of  the  atonement 
to  the  sinner  may  be  classed  as  Moral  Influence  the- 
ories. All  that  hold,  in  addition,  that  it  was  re- 
quired by  the  needs  of  moral  government  alone,  as 
Governmental.  All  that  hold  that  it  substitu- 
tionally  met  demands  arising  from  the  divine  nat- 
» are,  as  Vicarious. 

The  advocates,  both  of  the  Governmental  and 
Moral  Influence  theories,  agree  in  denying  that 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

there  is  any  such  principle  as  vindicatory  justice  in 
God  (that  is,  that  there  is  a  demand  in  the  divine 
nature  that  wrong  should  be  punished),  but  the 
Governmental  teaches  that  justice  in  God  "is  to  be 
referred  to  a  general  governmental  rectitude,  based 
upon  a  benevolent  regard  for  the  highest  ultimate 
and  most  general  well-being  of  the  subjects  of  his 
moral  government." 

The  advocates  of  the  Moral  Influence  theory  hold 
that  the  single  ultimate  principle  that  determines 
God  in  the  great  work  of  redemption  is  benevolence. 
They  also  hold  that  the  sole  object  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Christ  is  to  produce  a  moral  effect  upon 
the  sinner,  and  thus  reconcile  him  to  God.  They 
may  be  divided  into  two  schools  as  to  the  character 
of  this  effect : 

First,  the  Natural  Moral  Influence  theory.  This 
makes  it  an  influence  that  subdues  the  heart  and 
will  of  the  sinner  by  the  natural  influence  of  love, 
thus  bringing  the  life  into  harmony  with  God's 
will.  It  does  not  recognize  the  necessity  of  the 
inner  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Second,  the  Supernatural  Moral  Influence  theory. 
This  school  emphasizes  the  need  for  a  divine  work 
to  be  done  in  the  soul;  and  while  holding  that  the 
work  is  moral  and  not  legal,  still  maintains  a  true 
regeneration,  and  deliverance  from  sin  by  a  vital 
union  with  Christ,  or  an  imparted  life. 

Besides  holding  the  views  as  to  justice  already 
indicated,  the  advocates  of  the  Governmental  theory 
agree  : 


6  ATONEMENT. 

"  i.  That  law  is  a  product  of  the  divine  will,  and 
therefore  relaxable. 

2.  God's  sovereign  prerogative  includes  the  right 
of  pardon. 

3.  But  the  governmental  rectitude  ...   in  view 
of  the  fact  that  indiscriminate  pardon  would  en- 
courage the  violation  of  law,  determines  God  to 
condition  the  pardon  of  human  sinners  upon  an  im- 
posing example  of  suffering  in  a  victim  so  related 
to  mankind  and  to  himself,  as  effectually  to  demon- 
strate his  determination   that  sin  shall  not  be  in- 
dulged in  with  impunity." 

The  advocates  of  a  Vicarious  atonement  may  be 
divided  into  two  great  schools : 

First,  the  Calvinistic.  This  teaches  that  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ  were  an  exact  equivalent  for  those 
of  the  saved,  fully  meeting  the  demand  of  law  and 
of  the  divine  justice.  It  pays  the  debt  in  full. 

Second,  the  Arminian.  This  teaches  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  while  vicarious,  were  not  a 
full  equivalent,  but  that  God  was  pleased  to  accept 
them  in  the  place  of  those  that  the  sinner  would 
have  to  endure. 

The  Arminian  theory  was  largely  elaborated  by 
Limborch,  its  distinctive  feature  being  that  the 
death  of  Christ  was  a  sacrificial  offering.  While 
holding  the  idea  of  relaxation,  it  differs  from  the 
Governmental  theory  in  that  it  recognizes  a  demand 
in  the  divine  nature,  as  well  as  that  which  arises 
from  the  needs  of  government.  While  holding 
that  Christ's  sufferings  were  penal,  Arminians  deny 
that  they  were  an  exact  equivalent.  They  took  the 
place  of  the  penalty,  having  the  same  effect  in  rec- 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

onciling  God.  They  were  not  a  substituted  penalty 
(which  must  be  an  exact  equivalent),  as  Calvinists 
teach,  but  a  substitute  for  the  penalty  (which  may 
be  of  inferior  worth). 

SECTION  II. — Historical  Sketch. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  theory  of  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment was  unknown  to  the  church  before  Anselm, 
who,  it  is  said,  was  the  author  of  the  theory  of  sub- 
stitution. It  is  true  that  Anselm  was  the  first  to 
set  forth  the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement  in 
its  full,  clear,  scientific  form,  just  as  the  Moral  In- 
fluence theory  was  first  elaborated  by  Abelard,  and 
the  Governmental  by  Hugo  Grotius;  but  that  a 
vicarious  atonement  was  not  the  faith  of  the  church 
before  Anselm' s  time,  we  can  not  admit,  because 
the  reverse  is  true. 

As  to  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (those  who  lived 
during  the  life  of  the  apostles),  their  language 
was  that  of  the  Bible;  and  therefore  they  taught, 
as  we  confidently  believe,  a  vicarious  atonement. 

As  examples  of  their  teaching,  we  give  the  fol- 
lowing : 

u  Let  us  look  steadfastly  to  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  see  how  precious  that  blood  is  to  God,  which 
having  been  shed  for  our  salvation,  has  set  the  grace 
of  repentance  before  the  whole  world. ' '  (First  Epis- 
tle of  Clement,  Chapter  VII.) 

1  (  Let  us  then  continually  persevere  in  our  hope, 
and  the  earnest  of  our  righteousness,  which  is  Jesus 
Christ,  '  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree,'  'who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in 
his  mouth,'  but  endured  all  things  for  us,  that  we 


8  ATONEMENT. 

might  live  in  him."   (Epistle  of  Polycarp,   Chap- 
ter VIII.) 

' '  He  himself  took  upon  him  the  burden  of  our 
iniquities,  He  gave  his  own  Son  a  ransom  for  us, 
the  Holy  One  for  transgressors,  the  blameless  one 
for  the  wicked,  the  righteous  one  for  the  unright- 
eous, the  incorruptible  one  for  the  wicked,  the  im- 
mortal one  for  the  mortal.  For  what  other  thing 
was  capable  of  covering  our  sins  but  his  righteous- 
ness ?  By  what  other  one  was  it  possible  that  we, 
the  wicked  and  ungodly,  could  be  justified,  than  by 
the  only  Son  of  God?  O  sweet  exchange!  O  un- 
searchable operation!  O  benefits  surpassing  all 
expectation!  that  the  wickedness  of  many  should 
be  hid  in  a  single  righteous  one,  and  that  the  right- 
eousness of  one  should  justify  many  transgressors." 
(Epistle  to  Diognetus,  Chapter  VIII.) 

u  For  to  this  end  the  Lord  endured  to  deliver  up 
his  flesh  to  corruption,  that  we  might  be  sanctified 
through  the  remission  of  sins,  which  is  effected  by 
his  blood  of  sprinkling.  For  it  is  written  concern- 
ing him,  partly  with  reference  to  Israel,  and  partly 
to  us;  and  [the  Scriptures]  saith  thus  :  *  He  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised  for  our 
iniquities:  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.'  "  (Epis- 
tle of  Barnabas,  Chapter  V.) 

u  Become  the  imitators  of  his  sufferings,  and  of 
his  love,  wherewith  he  loved  us  when  he  gave  him- 
self a  ransom  for  us,  that  he  might  cleanse  us  by 
his  blood  from  our  old  ungodliness."  (Epistle  of 
Ignatius  to  the  Trallians,  Chapter  VIII.) 

From  the  time  of  these  Fathers  until  the  eleventh 
century  the  church  was  occupied  with  the  discussion 
as  to  the  PERSON  of  Christ,  giving  but  little  attention 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

to  his  work.     Yet  we  find  repeated  statements  that 
present  the  idea  of  a  vicarious  atonement : 

' '  Having  become  the  '  Mediator  between  God 
and  men;'  propitiating  indeed  for  us  the  Father 
against  whom  we  had  sinned,  and  cancelling  our 
disobedience  by  his  own  obedience;  conferring  also 
upon  us  the  gift  of  communion  with,  and  sub- 
jection to,  our  Maker.  For  this  reason  also  he 
taught  us  to  say  in  prayer,  'and  forgive  us  our 
debts;'  since  indeed  he  is  our  Father,  whose  debt- 
ors we  were,  having  transgressed  his  command- 
ments." (Irenaeus  against  heresies,  Book  V.,  Chap- 
ter XVII. ,  Sec.  I.) 

'  The  first  and  principal  ground  of  the  Logos 
becoming  man  was  the  condemnation  of  the  law  by 
which  we  are  burdened  with  guilt  and  eternal  pun- 
ishment, might  be  removed  by  the  payment  of  the 
penalty. ' ' 

'  The  death  of  the  incarnate  Logos  is  a  ransom 
for  the  sins  of  men." 

"  Laden  with  guilt,  the  world  was  condemned  by 
law,  but  the  Logos  assumed  the  condemnation,  and, 
suffering  in  the  flesh,  gave  salvation  to  all."  (Atha- 
nasius  contra  Arianos,  I.  45-60.) 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Eusebius,  John  of  Damascus, 
and  others,  use  similar  language. 

Augustine  writes  but  little  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
although  he  taught  a  vicarious  atonement.  He 
seems  to  have  held,  however,  the  opinion  that  pre- 
vailed largely  before  Anselm,  that  Christ  was  offered 
as  a  ransom  to  Satan,  who  held  men  by  right  of 
conquest,  for  he  says  : 

"It  would  have  been  injustice  if  Satan  had  not 


io  ATONEMENT. 

had  the  right  to  rule  over  the  being  whom  he  had 
taken  captive." 

Gregory  the  Great  is  more  direct  than  those  we 
have  quoted.  He  says  : 

* '  Guilt  can  be  extinguished  only  by  penal  offer- 
ing to  justice,  .  .  .  hence  a  sinless  man  must  be 
offered.  .  .  .  Hence  the  Son  must  be  born  of  a  vir- 
gin, and  become  man  for  us.  He  made  himself  a 
sacrifice  for  us,  and  set  forth  for  sinners  his  own 
body,  a  victim  without  sin,  and  able  both  to  die  by 
virtue  of  its  humanity,  and  to  cleanse  the  guilty, 
upon  grounds  of  justice."  (Moralia  in  Jobum, 
xvii.  46.) 

So  far,  therefore,  as  the  period  before  Anselm 
was  concerned,  while  we  have  no  formal  discus- 
sion of  the  doctrine,  it  was  plainly  held  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Fathers;  and  in  their  writings  we  find 
all  the  features  that  enter  into  the  later  and  more 
scientific  statement. 

In  the  eleventh  century  there  appeared  a  man  of 
sterling  worth,  ripe  scholarship,  and  possessed  of  a 
mind  of  remarkable  clearness  and  depth,  who  was 
to  turn  the  thought  of  Christendom  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  person  to  the  work  of  Christ. 

Anselm  was  born  in  Piedmont  in  the  year  1033. 
After  his  mother's  death,  and  because  of  his  father's 
harshness,  he  left  his  home  and  made  his  way  into 
France.  Here  he  became  a  monk,  at  the  age  of 
twenty-seven,  in  the  monastery  of  Bee,  and  three 
years  later  became  its  friar.  He  soon  made  it  the 
foremost  seat  of  learning  in  Europe.  In  1092  he 
crossed  into  England,  and  in  the  following  year  was 


INTRODUCTION.  1 1 

elected  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  which  position 
he  held  until  his  death  in  1109.  His  writings  made 
a  profound  impression  in  his  own  age,  and  perhaps 
more  than  those  of  any  man  influenced  the  theo- 
logical opinions  of  the  entire  church  as  to  Christ's 
work. 

He  has  been  called  ' '  the  first  scholastic  philoso- 
pher and  theologian." 

' '  In  his  great  work,  Cur  Deiis  homo,  he  under- 
takes to  make  plain,  even  to  infidels,  the  rational 
necessity  of  the  Christian  mystery  of  the  atonement. 
The  theory  rests  upon  three  positions;  that  satisfac- 
tion was  necessary  on  account  of  God's  honor  and 
justice;  that  such  satisfaction  can  be  given  only  by 
the  peculiar  personality  of  the  God-man;  that  such 
satisfaction  is  really  given  by  the  voluntary  death 
of  this  infinitely  valuable  person.  The  demonstra- 
tion is  in  brief  this :  All  the  actions  of  men  are 
due  for  the  furtherance  of  God's  glory;  if,  then, 
there  be  sin — that  is,  if  God's  honor  be  wounded,  man 
of  himself  can  give  no  satisfaction ;  and  as  an  insult 
to  infinite  honor  is  itself  infinite,  the  satisfaction 
must  be  infinite — that  is,  it  must  outweigh  all  that  is 
not  God.  Such  a  penalty  can  only  be  paid  by  God 
himself,  and  as  a  penalty  for  man,  must  be  paid 
under  the  form  of  man.  Satisfaction  is  only  pos- 
sible through  the  God-man.  Now  this  God-man, 
as  sinless,  is  exempt  from  the  penalty  of  sin;  his 
passion  is  therefore  voluntary,  not  given  as  due. 
The  merit  of  it  is  infinite;  God's  justice  is  thus 
appeased;  and  his  mercy  may  extend  to  men." 

We  believe  that  while  Anselm  in  many  ways  pre- 
sents clearly  the  doctrine  of  substitution,  his  phi- 
losophy has  some  serious  defects.  The  most  seri- 
ous is  the  making  sin  committed  on  earth  to  be  in- 


12  ATONEMENT. 

finite  demerit.  This  is  part  of  the  Calvinistic  the- 
ory of  substitution;  and  while  it  is  held  by  some 
who  are  not  Calvinists,  it  is  always  at  the  expense 
of  logical  consistency. 

If  the  philosophy  of  Anselm  as  to  the  demerit  of 
sin  be  true,  we  are  logically  driven  either  to  the  re- 
jection of  substitution  or  the  acceptance  of  a  lim- 
ited atonement. 

Anselm  held,  and  rightly,  that  unless  the  atone- 
ment was  demanded  by  an  inherent  and  necessary 
attribute  of  the  Godhead,  it  could  never  be  scien- 
tifically vindicated. 

The  discussion  of  the  theory  of  Anselm  led  to 
the  development  of  that  of  Abelard. 

Abelard,  when  but  twenty  years  of  age,  went  to 
the  celebrated  school  of  Notre  Dame  at  Paris,  be- 
coming a  pupil  of  William  of  Champeau,  who  was 
then  teaching  the  doctrines  of  Anselm.  Possessed 
of  a  brilliant  intellect  and  seeing  the  weak  places 
in  the  philosophy  of  Anselm,  he  soon  entered  into 
a  dispute  with  his  master,  and  history  says,  over- 
came him  in  debate.  He  seems  then  to  have  em- 
barked in  a  career  of  disputation,  traveling  exten- 
sively, and  overcoming  all  opposition.  In  1115  he 
occupies  the  chair  at  Notre  Dame,  and  thousands 
of  students  flock  to  his  school.  His  connection 
with  Heloise,  which  constitutes  one  of  the  great 
romances  of  the  Middle  Ages,  led  to  his  downfall; 
and  after  a  stormy  life,  he  died  in  1142. 

As  to  the  atonement,  he  begins  and  ends  with 
the  benevolence  of  God;  which  is  separated  from, 
and  not  limited  by,  his  holiness.  He  denied  that 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

there  was  any  thing  in  the  divine  nature  that  neces- 
sitated satisfaction,  holding  that  the  object  of  Christ's 
work  was  to  produce  sorrow  in  the  human  soul  and 
reconcile  man  to  God. 

The  theories  of  Anseltn  and  Abelard  held  posses- 
sion of  the  field  for  over  four  centuries,  until  the 
time  of  Hugo  Grotius.  It  may  be  said  that  u  in 
the  annals  of  precocious  genius  there  is  no  greater 
prodigy  on  record  than  Hugo  Grotius."  Born  in 
the  Low  Countries  in  1583,  he  made  good  L,atin 
verses  at  nine,  was  ready  to  enter  the  university  at 
twelve,  and  at  sixteen  received  the  degree  of  Doctor 
of  I^aw  at  L,eyden,  and  began  the  practice  of  law. 
His  aspirations,  however,  were  for  authorship,  his 
writings  being  very  numerous.  His  contributions 
to  history,  politics,  and  poetry  are  valuable,  and 
show  the  versatility  of  his  genius.  His  contribu- 
tions to  law  gave  him  a  world-wide  fame,  it  being 
said  that  he  had  almost  created  a  new  science,  that 
of  international  law.  In  theology  he  stands  pre- 
eminent, chiefly  as  the  first  to  formulate  the  govern- 
mental theory  of  the  atonement.  He  held  that  God 
accepted  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  not  because  it 
possessed  a  strictly  infinite  value,  but  because,  in 
his  benevolence,  he  is  willing  to  accept  it  as  satis- 
faction, just  as  the  creditor  may  discharge  the 
debtor,  by  part  payment,  or  by  none. 

Regarding  law  and  penalty  he  taught : 

UA11  positive  laws  are  relaxable.  Those  who  fear 
that  if  we  concede  this  we  do  injury  to  God,  because 
we  thereby  represent  him  as  mutable,  are  much  de- 
ceived. For  law  is  not  something  internal  in  God, 


14  ATONEMENT. 

or  in  the  will  of  God,  but  it  is  a  particular  effect  or 
product  of  his  will.  But  that  the  effects  or  pro- 
ducts of  his  will  are  mutable  is  very  certain.  More- 
over, in  promulgating  a  positive  law  which  he  might 
wish  to  relax  at  some  future  time,  God  does  not  ex- 
hibit any  fickleness  of  will.  .  .  .  It  is  objected 
to  this  view  that  it  is  naturally  just  that  the  wicked 
should  be  punished  with  such  a  punishment  as  cor- 
responds to  their  crime,  and  therefore  that  pun- 
ishment is  not  a  matter  of  optional  choice,  neither 
is  it  relaxable.  In  answer  to  this  objection,  it  is  to 
be  noticed  that  it  does  not  always  follow  that  in- 
justice is  done  when  justice  is  not  done 

Furthermore,  a  threat  to  punish  is  not  like  a  prom- 
ise to  reward.  For  from  the  promise  to  reward  there 
accrues  a  certain  right  or  claim  on  the  part  of  him 
to  whom  the  promise  is  made,  but  the  threat  of 
punishment  only  declares  the  transgressor's  desert 
of  penalty  and  the  right  to  punish  on  the  part  of 
him  that  threatens." 

Relaxation,  instead  of  satisfaction,  is  the  theory 
of  Grotius.  But  the  question  arises,  if  God  can 
relax  at  all,  why  not  entirely  ?  Where  is  the  neces- 
sity for  the  sufferings  of  Christ?  Grotius  replies 
that,  so  far  as  God's  nature  was  concerned,  he  could 
have  done  this;  but  he  could  not  relax  entirely  with 
safety  to  the  created  universe.  To  maintain  his 
government  was,  therefore,  the  ground  upon  which 
an  atonement  was  required,  and  not  any  thing  in 
the  nature  of  God.  The  theory  of  Grotius  is  ex- 
emplary, not  expiatory,  or  retributive.  It  was  made 
to  prevent  future  sin,  not  to  atone  for  that  which 
was  past. 

SECTION  III. — Definitions. 

Definitions  are  properly  in  place  in  this  introduc- 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

tion,  although  the  meaning  of  the  words  used  that 
are  scriptural,  are,  in  reality,  part  of  the  argument 
itself. 

First.  — ATONEMENT. 

The  word  as  now  used  by  theologians  has  the 
same  sense  that  the  word  u  satisfaction  "  had  in  the 
seventeenth  century  and  the  word  ' '  redemption  ' ' 
still  later;  it  is  used  to  designate  the  entire  work 
that  Christ  has  done  for  us.  It  is  so  used  when  we 
speak  of  "theories  of  the  atonement."  This  is 
never  its  Bible  meaning.  The  moral  influence  and 
governmental  are  theories  of  Christ's  work;  but  in 
the  Bible  sense  of  the  word  atonement,  they  are,  in 
reality,  denials  of  the  atonement. 

The  etymology  insisted  upon  by  Socinians  of 
at-one-ment  is  a  very  doubtful  one,  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  spelling.  Any  argument  that  is 
founded  upon  this  doubtful  etymology  must  be 
faulty,  because  it  can  not  be  made  from  the  word 
used  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"J§5  (kaphar)  the  verb,  has  the  root  meaning 
' '  to  cover, ' '  and  is  denned  by  Gesenius  : 

u  i .  To  cover  over  sin,  to  hide,  spoken  of  God  as 
the  offended  party — that  is,  to  forgive,  to  pardon 
sin 

2.  Spoken  of  the  offender  or  his  representative, 
to  cover  sin,  to  hide — that  is,  to  do  away  by  some  expi- 
atory act,  to  purge,  so  that  he  may  be  pardoned; 
hence  (a)  to  expiate  an  offense,  fault,  to  atone  for 
.  .  .  .  (b)  to  make  expiation  or  atonement  for  an 
offender,  to  free  him  from  guilt  .  .  .  .  (c)  to  ap- 
pease, to  placate  the  person  offended  ....  So  of 


1 6  ATONEMENT. 

impending  evil — that  is,  to  avert  by  expiation." 
The  corresponding  noun  DH|D  (kippurim)  Gese- 
nius  defines:  "Expiations,  atonement" 

They  are  the  only  Hebrew  words  translated 
"atonement,"  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  while 
the  root  meaning  is  "  to  cover, ' '  the  words  are  never 
so  translated.  Kaphar  is  translated  by  other  words 
than  "atonement,"  an  examination  of  which  will 
help  us  to  see  the  Bible  meaning  of  the  word. 

Gen.  vi.  14,  "Pitch  it." 

Gen.  xxxii.  20,  "Appease." 

Ex.  xxi.  20,  "Ransom." 

L,ev.  xvi.  20,  "Reconciling." 

Num.  xxxv.  31,  32,  "Satisfaction." 

Num.  xxxv.  33,  "Cleansed." 

Ps.  Ixxix.  9,  "Purge  away." 

Kzek.  xvi.  63,  "Pacified." 

How  suggestive  that  the  word  for  atonement  has 
for  its  root  meaning  "to  cover."  It  will  always 
be  true  that  we  did  commit  the  sin.  It  may  be 
blotted  out  of  the  book  of  God's  remembrance,  cast 
behind  his  back,  removed  from  us  as  far  as  the  east 
is  from  the  west,  but  it  can  not  be  undone.  But 
while  it  can  not  be  undone,  by  the  grace  of  God  it 
may  be  covered  over  by  the  blood;  hidden  away, 
blotted  out. 

"Blessed  is  the  man  whose  transgression  is  for- 
given, whose  sin  \&  covered" — Psalm  xxxii.  i.  Rom. 
iv.  7. 

The  word  atonement  occurs  only  once  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  then  incorrectly,  as  a  translation  of 
the  Greek  word  Karatta^  (katallagee).  The  Revised 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

Version  translates  this  properly  ' '  reconciliation. ' ' 
The  Greek  word  translated  "propitiation"  is  the 
word  used  in  the  Septuagint  to  translate  the  He- 
brew word  for  "atonement."  Atonement  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  propitiation  in  the  New  are 
synonymous  words. 

Second.  — PROPITIATION. 

Webster  defines  this : 

u  i.  The  act  of  appeasing  wrath  and  conciliating 
the  favor  of  an  offended  party,  the  act  of  making 
propitiation. 

"2.  (Theol.)  (a)  The  influence  or  effects  of  the 
death  of  Christ  in  appeasing  the  divine  justice,  and 
conciliating  the  divine  favor,  (b)  That  which  pro- 
pitiates, atonement  or  atoning  sacrifice. ' ' 

Three  forms  of  the  Greek  word  are  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  an  examination  of  which  will  give 
the  Scripture  meaning. 

First,  the  verb  LZaaxofjiat  (hilaskomai}. 
(  To  appease,  render  propitious;   in  New  Testa- 
ment to  expiate,  make  an  atonement  or  expiation 
for  Heb.  ii.  17;  ihwdrpt  (hilastheeti\  be  gracious, 
show  mercy,  pardon. — L,uke  xviii.  13." — Bagster. 
'To  be  propitious  or  merciful,  favor,  befriend; 
to  atone,  make  atonement  for,  "expiate." — Groves. 

This  word  is  used  twice  in  the  New  Testament, 
translated  ' '  be  merciful ' '  and  ' l  make  reconcilia- 
tion for." 

' '  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be 
made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  be  a 
merciful  high-priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to 
3 


i8  ATONEMENT. 

make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people." — 
Heb.  ii.  17. 

Here  the  idea  of  expiation  can  not  be  left  out. 
Making  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  or 
more  literally,  as  given  by  the  Revised  Version, u  to 
make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people,"  was 
part  of  Christ's  priestly  work  in  things  which  had 
a  bearing  iipon  God  (r«  TT^OC  rov  6eou — ta  pros  ton 
the  on). 

"  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." — lytike  xviii. 

*3- 

Standing  in  the  court  of  the  temple,  within  sight 

of  the  brazen  altar  with  its  blood,  instructed  as  to 
the  meaning  of  that  blood,  the  publican  says, 
u  God  be  propitious  to  me  the  sinner  "  (rco  hpaprcofao 
— too  hamartooloo — the  sinner).  Or,  ' '  God  make 
propitiation  for  me  the  sinner,"  evidently  on  the 
ground  of  the  expiation  made  by  the  blood. 

Second,  lXaap.6s  (hilasmos). 

"  Propitiation,  expiation;  one  who  makes  expia- 
tion. ' ' — Bagster. 

"A  propitiation,  atonement,  reconciliation;  a 
sacrifice,  sin-offering. ' ' — Groves. 

This  word  is  used  twice  in  the  New  Testament, 
translated  "propitiation." 

And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins." — i 
John  ii.  2. 

"  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins." — i  John  iv.  10. 

The  texts  are  plain,  showing  that  Christ  himself 
is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

Third,  daartfpta*  (ilasteerion). 

* '  Propitiatory,  invested  with  propitiatory  power. ' ' 
— Bagster. 

"A  propitiatory  thing;  a  propitiation,  atonement, 
expiation;  the  lid  or  covering  of  the  ark,  the  mercy- 
seat.  ' ' — Groves. 

This  word  also  occurs  twice  and  is  translated 
' '  propitiation ' '  and  ' (  mercy-seat. ' ' 

"And  over  it  the  cherubims  of  glory  shadowing 
the  mercy-seat ;  of  which  we  can  not  now  speak 
particularly." — Heb.  ix.  5. 

The  mercy-seat  was  the  place  where  the  blood 
was  sprinkled  on  the  day  of  atonement.  The  mercy- 
seat  was  properly  a  propitiatory. 

'  'Whom  God  hath  set  forth  a  propitiation  through 
faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for 
the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  for- 
bearance of  God." — Rom.  iii.  25. 

The  Greek  word  here  used  is  the  one  used  in  the 
Septuagint  to  translate  the  Hebrew  word  for 
"mercy-seat."  If  we  retain  that  translation  it 
ought  to  be  so  rendered  here,  which  points  out  more 
exactly  Paul's  thought.  Propitiatory  would,  how- 
ever be  a  more  literal  translation,  and  should  be 
substituted  for  "mercy-seat"  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments. 

By  this  examination  it  is  seen  that  the  classic 
meaning  of  the  words  is  evidently  their  Bible  mean- 
ing. There  is  nothing  in  the  context  to  indicate  a 
new  meaning,  and  in  the  absence  of  this,  we  are 
justified  by  every  principle  of  sound  exegesis  in 


20  ATONEMENT. 

saying  that  propitiation  is  to  make  God  favorable 
by  an  expiation. 

Third  .—EXPIATION. 

Theologians  distinguish  between  propitiation  and 
expiation.  As  both  are  expressed  by  the  Greek 
word,  it  is  better  to  distinguish  them  as  that  which 
makes  God  favorable,  and  God's  being  favorable. 
When  we  speak  of  God  as  being  propitiated,  we 
mean  that  he  has  been  made  favorable.  When  we 
speak  of  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  we 
mean  that  which  makes  God  favorable.  Expiation 
is  limited  to  this  last  thought — the  cause.  Propiti- 
ation includes  both  —  the  cause  and  the  effect. 
Webster  defines  expiation  : 

u  i.  The  act  of  making  satisfaction  for  an  offense; 
atonement;  satisfaction. 

2.  The  means  by  which  atonement  for  crimes  is 
made;  atonement. 

3.  An  act  by  which  the  threats  of  prodigies  were 
averted  among;  the  ancient  heathen." 

Fourth.  — REDEMPTION. 

This  means  to  bring  from  a  state  of  bondage  into 
liberty;  to  set  free.  This  can  be  done  in  two  ways. 
First,  by  piirchase — that  is,  by  the  payment  of  a 
price  or  ransom.  Secondly,  by  power,  as  when 
God  gave  freedom  to  Israel  from  the  captivity  of 
Egypt  This  twofold  manner  of  redemption  is  a 
very  important  distinction. 

Fifth. — PENAL  SATISFACTION  AND  DEBT. 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  makes  the  following  distinction 
—following  in  this  the  celebrated  Swiss  theologian 
Turretin : 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

( '  The  distinction  between  a  penal  and  &  pecuniary 
satisfaction.  The  first  concerns  crime  and  person, 
the  other  concerns  debt  and  things.  They  differ 
(a)  In  crime  the  demand  terminates  upon  the  person 
of  the  criminal;  in  debt  upon  the  thing  due.  (b) 
In  crime  the  demand  is  for  that  kind,  degree,  and 
duration  of  suffering  that  enlightened  reason  dis- 
cerns to  be  demanded  by  justice;  in  debt  the  de- 
mand is  precisely  and  only  for  the  thing  due,  an 
exact  quid  pro  quo.  (c)  In  crime  a  vicarious  suffer- 
ing of  the  penalty  is  advisable  only  at  the  absolute 
discretion  of  the  sovereign;  and  the  consequent  re- 
lease of  the  criminal  is  a  matter  of  grace;  in  debt 
the  payment  of  the  thing  due,  by  whomsoever 
made,  ipso  facto,  liberates;  and  its  acceptance  and 
the  release  of  the  debtor  is  no  matter  of  grace." 

This  is  defective.  The  distinction  points  out, 
however,  the  ground  of  the  substitution  according 
to  Calvinists. 

Dr.  Hodge  starts  wrong,  as  a  "distinction  be- 
tween a  penal  and  pecuniary  satisfaction ' '  is  not 
what  is  meant;  but  the  distinction  between  a  penal 
satisfaction  and  debt.  The  law  recognizes  many 
offenses  that  are  punishable  with  a  fine.  Where  will 
Dr.  Hodge  place  them  ?  If  under  the  head  of 
"penal,"  where  they  belong,  the  whole  distinction 
gives  way.  If  under  the  head  of  "pecuniary," 
then  a  pecuniary  satisfaction  concerns  more  than 
debt  and  things. 

Again,  what  is  meant  by  crime?  If  it  includes 
all  offenses  against  the  law,  Dr.  Hodge's  proposi- 
tions break  down.  If  it  means  those  offenses  pun- 
ishable by  imprisonment  or  death,  it  lays  a  founda-. 
tion  for  the  objection  that  a  penalty  can  not  be 


22  ATONEMENT. 

borne  by  a  substitute  without  bearing  the  criminal- 
ity; in  other  words,  it  gives  a  false  meaning  to  the 
word  penal. 

Again,  Dr.  Hodge  leaves  out  a  very  important 
factor — that  in  a  vicarious  bearing  of  the  penalty  or 
payment  of  a  debt,  the  consent  of  the  criminal  or 
debtor  would  have  to  be  obtained. 

We  venture  the  following  as  a  substitute  for  Dr. 
Hodgers  distinctions: 

The  distinction  between  a  penal  satisfaction  and 
debt  The  one  is  a  demand  arising  from  a  viola- 
tion of  law,  the  other  a  demand  arising  from  per- 
sonal obligation. 

1.  In  penal  satisfaction  the  demand  is  on  the  per- 
son of  the  criminal  to  suffer ;  in  debt  the  demand  is 
on  the  person  of  the  debtor  to  pay. 

2.  ( '  In  penal  satisfaction  the  demand  is  for  that 
kind,  degree,  and  duration  of  suffering  that  enlight- 
ened reason  discerns  to  be  demanded  "  as  an  expia- 
tion for  the  offense;   "in  debt  the  demand  is  pre- 
cisely and  only  for  the  thing  due,  an  exact  quid  pro 
quo." 

3.  In  penal  satisfaction  a  vicarious  suffering  is 
only  admissible  when  the  demands  of  justice  can  be 
met  without  the  criminality  being  assumed  by  the 
substitute;  in  debt  a  vicarious  payment  can  be  made 
with  the  consent  of  the  debtor. 

Substitution  is  always  of  grace,  whether  it  be  the 
vicarious  bearing  of  a  penalty  or  payment  of  a  debt. 
Not  grace  on  the  part  of  law  or  justice,  but  grace 
to  the  one  who  is  benefited,  shown  by  the  one  who 
suffers  or  pays.  Thus  it  is  the  ' c  grace  of  our  Lord 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

Jesus  Christ,"  and  as  Christ  is  God,  it  is  the  "  grace 
of  God." 

Sixth.— SUBSTITUTION. 

u  i.  The  act  of  substituting  or  putting  one 
person  or  thing  in  the  place  of  another;  as,  the 
substitution  of  an  agent,  attorney,  or  representative, 
to  act  for  one  in  his  absence;  the  substitution  of 
bank  notes  for  gold  and  silver  as  a  circulating  me- 
dium  

5.  (Theol.)  The  doctrine  that  Christ  suffered 
vicariously,  being  substituted,  as  it  were,  for  the 
sinner,  and  that  his  sufferings  were  expiatory." 
—  Webster. 

Some  press  the  thought  of  Christ  being  a  substi- 
tute until  it  is  no  longer  substitution  that  is  meant 
but  identification.  To  put  a  person  or  thing  in  the 
place  of  another  is  all  that  is  meant;  and  that  with- 
out reference  to  what  is  substituted,  or  why.  A 
merchant  in  filling  a  bill  of  goods  substitutes  one 
article  in  the  place  of  another.  They  may  be 
totally  dissimilar,  yet  if  one  is  sent  in  the  place  of 
another,  it  is  substituted  for  it.  Bank  notes  are  a 
substitute  for  coin,  yet  totally  dissimilar.  If,  then, 
Christ  died  for  us,  and  by  that  death  satisfied  a  de- 
mand that  was  against  us  so  that  God  is  propitiated, 
then  his  death  was  that  of  a  substitute,  and  that 
irrespective  of  the  character  or  duration  of  his  suf- 
ferings. 

Seventh.  — VICARIOUS. 

"  i.  Of,  or  pertaining  to,  a  vicar,  substitute,  or 
deputy;  deputed;  delegated;  as,  vicarious  power,  or 
authority. 


24  ATONEMENT. 

2.  Acting  or  suffering  for  another;  as  vicarious 
agent  or  officer. 

3.  Performed  or  suffered  in  the  place  of  another; 
substituted;  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice;  vicarioiis  pun- 
ishment. " — Webster. 

Substitution  and  vicarious  are  words  used  synony- 
mously to  express  what  is  meant  by  the  words,  ' '  in 
the  place  of"  This  is  all  that  the  words  them- 
selves express  when  applied  to  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ.  If  they  were  in  the  place  of  ours, 
then  they  were  vicarious,  and  Christ  is  a  substi- 
tute. 


PART  I. 


THE  NECESSITY  FOR  AN  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  II. 

PRELIMINARY    STATEMENTS  AS    TO    THE   DIVINE 
NATURE   AND   ATTRIBUTES. 

Defective  views  as  to  the  Godhead  and  of  the 
atonement  go  hand  in  hand.  Most  of  the  objections 
that  are  urged  against  substitution  have  their  root 
here.  It  is  important,  therefore,  that  we  be  re- 
minded of  certain  fundamental  principles  as  to  the 
Godhead,  and  that  we  contemplate  those  attributes 
we  are  in  danger  of  forgetting. 

SECTION  I. —  We  must  banish  our  material  con- 
ceptions when  we  contemplate  the  Deity. 

It  has  been  the  belief  of  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tians that  the  language  that  speaks  of  God  as  having 
body,  parts,  and  passions,  is  used  only  in  an  accom- 
modated sense. 

Words  being  the  signs  of  ideas,  it  follows  that  in 
the  formation  of  language  that  which  can  be  con- 
ceived of  only  gets  its  name  from  that  which  is 
represented  to  the  senses.  Thus  there  is  always, 
even  when  describing  states  that  are  purely  mental, 


26  ATONEMENT. 

a  material  conception  in  the  words  we  use.  More, 
that  which  is  beyond  the  range  of  our  senses  and  of 
our  consciousness,  can  not  be  conceived  of  at  all; 
and  can  only  be  presented  to  our  minds  by  words 
that  express  ideas  we  already  have. 

We  find,  by  examination,  two  distinct  classes  of 
phenomena  that  can  never  be  attributed  to  the 
same  substance.  Thus  we  have  thought,  feeling, 
and  will,  known  to  us  through  consciousness  on  the 
one  hand,  and  extension,  inertia,  etc.,  known  through 
the  senses  on  the  other. 

What  is  matter  ?  To  this  question  no  direct  an- 
swer can  be  given,  because  the  substance  we  call 
matter  is  in  itself  unknown,  and  perhaps  unknow- 
able. We  can  only  answer  indirectly  by  describing 
its  properties.  Thus  we  say,  that  matter  is  that 
substance  which  possesses  the  properties  of  impene- 
trability, extension,  figure,  divisibility,  inertia,  etc. 
These  general  properties  belong  to  matter  in  every 
form  known  to  science.  It  is  only  by  these  prop- 
erties that  matter  is  known.  Who  can  conceive  of 
matter,  in  itself,  apart  from  them  ?  And  who,  with 
these  fully  manifest  to  our  senses,  can  deny  its  ex- 
istence ? 

What  then  is  spirit  ?  As  in  the  case  of  matter, 
no  direct  answer  can  be  given;  we  can  only  reply 
by  describing  its  properties,  as  these  are  known  to 
consciousness.  Spirit  is  that  substance  that  knows 
and  feels  and  wills.  As  these  properties  differ  from 
those  that  belong  to  matter,  and  differ  also  in  their 
mode  of  manifestation,  being  known  through  con- 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  27 

sciousness  and  not  the  senses,  they  must  belong  to 
another  substance. 

The  Bible  affirms  that  "  God  is  a  Spirit."  Not 
that  he  is  spiritual,  but  spirit.  God  is  not  a  mate- 
rial being,  for  the  properties  of  matter  can  not  be 
predicated  of  him.  We  can  not  speak  of  God  as 
possessing  impenetrability,  extension,  or  figure,  be- 
cause he  is  omnipotent.  We  can  not  regard  God  as 
material,  because  the  properties  of  matter  manifest 
themselves  to  the  senses,  and  our  senses  have 
never  apprehended  God. 

u  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  (John 
i.  18.) 

"Whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see."  (i 
Tim.  vi.  16.) 

All  our  material  thoughts  must  be  excluded  when 
we  contemplate  the  Deity.  How  otherwise  would 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  other  than  an  ab- 
surdity ? 

SECTION  II.  —  We  must  exclude  from  our  ideas 
of  God  all  our  mental  conceptions,  as  well  as 
our  material,  so  far  as  they  are  the  result  of  limita- 
tion. 

We  can  not  measure  the  infinite  by  the  finite,  the 
perfect  by  the  imperfect,  the  immutable  by  the 
changeable.  To  illustrate  a  danger  take  the  fol- 
lowing from  B.  F.  Underwood's  lecture  on  "Mate- 
rialism : ' ' 

"Christianity  assumes  the  existence  of  a  God, 
infinite  in  presence  and  duration,  yet  he  is  a  personal 
being,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  personality 
implies  limitation  in  space  and  time.  He  is  an  in- 


28  ATONEMENT. 

telligent  being,  although  intelligence — the  only  in- 
telligence of  which  we  have  any  knowledge — im- 
plies limited  faculties,  such  as  reason,  memory, 
imagination,  ideality,  calculation,  benevolence, 
etc.,  which  can  exist  only  in  a  being  confined  to 
locality,  finite  in  knowledge,  and  subject  to  imper- 
fection. 

If  God  reasons,  he  must  compare  objects  or  ideas 
and  deduce  conclusions;  but  conclusions  arrived  at 
by  a  process  of  ratiocination  can  not  have  been 
known  to  him  prior  to  such  reasoning.  If  he  pos- 
sesses memory,  the  faculty  of  recalling  past  events, 
a  knowledge  of  things  present  at  one  time  is  absent 
at  another.  If  he  has  imagination,  something  must 
be  invisible  to  him  for  the  ideal  objects  of  this  fac- 
ulty exist  in  the  realm  of  the  unseen.  If  he  has 
hope,  his  knowledge  must  surely  be  limited,  and  his 
feelings  variable,  for  hope  is  made  up  of  uncertainty 
and  desire.  If  he  designs,  he  must  be  finite  both 
in  knowledge  and  power,  for  to  design  is  to  calcu- 
late, to  cogitate,  to  decide,  and  then  to  use  inter- 
mediate agencies  to  accomplish  certain  ends,  which 
are  directly  unattainable.  If  he  is  benevolent,  he 
can  not  be  perfectly  happy,  for  benevolence  implies 
sympathy  with  the  objects  of  its  efforts,  and  there- 
fore feelings  in  common  with  the  party  needing  aid. 
These  faculties  and  powers,  together  with  others 
that  might  be  named,  can  be  conceived  as  existing 
only  in  a  being  confined  to  locality,  limited  in  time, 
finite  in  knowledge,  and  subject  to  infirmities. 
Does  God  possess  them  ?  If  he  does,  he  is  a  finite 
being.  If  he  does  not,  then  he  is  a  being  without 
memory,  without  calculation  or  design,  without 
hope,  without  benevolence;  and  a  being  without 
these  mental  qualities  or  powers  is  a  being  without 
intelligence. ' ' 

Reduced  to  syllogistic  form,  this  amounts  simply  to : 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  29 

Man's  intelligence  is  limited  in  every  direction. 

All  intelligence  is  like  man's  (because  we  know 
no  other). 

Therefore  God  is  finite,  or  without  intelligence. 

This  is  a  qniet  assumption  of  the  whole  question 
at  issue ;  for  when  the  Christian  affirms  that  God  is 
a  pure  intelligence,  infinite  in  all  his  attributes,  he 
affirms  that  all  intelligence  is  not  like  man's. 

It  well  illustrates  the  danger  of  taking  the  phe- 
nomena of  spirit,  as  manifested  to  us  with  the  lim- 
itations inseparable  from  the  finite,  and  rigidly 
applying  them  to  God.  It  will,  of  necessity,  lead 
to  contradictions,  difficulties,  and  absurdities. 

SECTION  III.  —  We  must  avoid  all  ideas  of  lim- 
itation ivhen  contemplating  God. 

God  can  not  be  limited,  either  in  space,  time, 
knowledge,  or  power.  With  us,  time  presents  itself 
with  the  relations  of  past,  present,  and  future. 
This  is  the  necessary  result  of  limitation  in  a  finite 
being.  We  can  not  believe  such  limitation  to 
apply  to  God.  Known  unto  him  is  the  end  from 
the  beginning.  Infinite  in  his  perfections,  he  is 
always  the  ' '  I  am. ' ' 

"  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am"    (John  viii.  58.) 

The  doctrine  of  the  Eternity  of  God  teaches  that 
he  never  had  a  beginning,  and  will  never  have  an 
end;  that  his  thoughts,  purposes,  and  acts,  are 
without  succession,  and  are  never  past,  present,  or 
future,  as  it  regards  himself.  The  thought  of  God 
being  angry  and  being  propitiated  implies  change 
and  succession  from  our  time  stand-point. 

Some  have  from  this  reasoned  that  they  can  have 


30  ATONEMENT. 

no  real  existence,  and  are  therefore  only  modes  of 
thought  in  presenting  the  work  of  Christ  to  us. 
The  objection  has  no  weight,  however,  when  we 
remember  the  eternity  of  God;  and  would  apply  as 
against  creation,  providence,  or  prayer,  as  much  as 
against  the  atonement.  The  whole  work  of  redemp- 
tion, and  all  it  implies,  is,  from  God's  stand-point, 
one  and  indivisible. 

SECTION  IV.  —  7^he  Bible  statements  of  the  nature 
and  attributes  of  God,  while  made  in  accommodated 
language,  are  real. 

In  what  we  have  said  of  the  nature  and  attributes 
of  God,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  taking 
the  extreme  ground  that  the  Bible  'representations 
of  God  do  not  correspond  to  the  reality.  Some 
have  held  that  these  representations  of  God  give  us 
no  real  idea  of  him. 

' '  Being  sufficient  to  guide  our  practice,  but  not 
to  satisfy  our  intellect,  which  tell  not  what  God  is 
in  himself,  but  how  he  wills  that  we  should  think 
of  him."  , 

This,  however,  undermines  the  foundations  of 
all  religion;  for  if  we  are  to  regard  our  conceptions 
of  God  as  unreal,  we  are  left  without  any  certainty 
that  he  exists  at  all.  If  there  is  not  back  of  all 
Bible  representations  an  objective  reality,  fitly  and 
truly  presented  by  these,  then  all  ideas  of  duty  and 
religion  founded  upon  them  are  built  upon  the 
sand. 

Man  being  made  in  the  image  of  God,  we  must 
believe  that  when  the  Bible  represents  God  as 
knowing,  feeling,  or  willing,  there  is  a  real  knowl- 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  31 

edge,  feeling,  and  will,  the  same  in  kind  as  ours, 
but  without  our  finite  limitations.  So,  when  it 
speaks  of  God  as  merciful,  as  just,  as  good,  and  as 
true,  we  must  believe  that  these  are  real  qualities, 
only  without  the  limitations  and  the  imperfections 
that  they  are  associated  with  in  men. 

SECTION  V. — The  Holiness  of  God. 

The  divine  holiness  is  perhaps  the  most  difficult 
to  express  of  all  the  attributes.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  in 
his  classification  of  the  attributes,  places  it  by  itself, 
and  defines  it : 

uThe  holiness  of  God  is  not  to  be  conceived 
of  as  an  attribute  among  others;  it  is  rather  a  gen- 
eral term  representing  the  conception  of  his  con- 
summate perfection  and  total  glory.  It  is  his 
infinite  moral  perfection  crowning  his  infinite  intel- 
ligence and  power.  There  is  a  glory  of  each  attri- 
bute, and  a  glory  of  the  whole  together.  The  intel- 
lectual nature  is  the  essential  basis  of  the  moral. 
Infinite  moral  perfection  is  the  crown  of  the  God- 
head. Holiness  is  the  total  glory  thus  crowned. ' ' 

This  seems  to  identify  holiness  and  glory,  mak- 
ing holiness  the  united  glory  of  all  the  attributes; 
nor  does  it  fully  appear  what  he  means  by  glory. 
Does  he  mean  that  it  is  the  moral  quality  of  each 
attribute?  Then,  as  the  moral 'quality  of  justice  is 
justice,  and  of  truth  is  truth,  it  would  simply  mean 
that  holiness  is  the  union  of  all  the  attributes. 
This  would  confound  holiness  with  the  divine 
nature  or  essence.  Does  he  mean  a  moral  quality 
in  each  attribute  distinct  from  it?  Then  his  defi- 
nition is  no  definition.  Does  he  mean  the  glory 


32  ATONEMENT. 

that  comes  from  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
perfections  ?  Is  this  what  he  means  by  glory  ?  If 
so,  we  can  hardly  accept  it  as  a  definition  of  holiness. 

Oehler's  definition  is  by  far  the  best,  the  most 
scientific  and  complete.  Starting  with  the  word 
itself,  ^'["Jj^  (kadosJi),  he  traces  the  development  of 
its  meaning  in  the  Old  Testament. 

"  Etymological ly,  the  root  meaning  of  kadosh 
can  not  be  exactly  defined."  Oehler,  Baudissin,  and 
others  agree  in  giving  to  the  word  as  its  funda- 
mental etymological  signification  the  idea  of  ' '  sep- 
aration. ' ' 

Gesenius  derives  it  from  £HpT  (kadastt),  "  to  be 
pure,  clean."  But  this  is  the  developed  meaning 
of  the  root,  as  Oehler  points  out.  The  weight  of 
evidence  is  in  favor  of  the  primary  idea  being  that 
of  ' ( separation. ' ' 

The  word  holiness  does  not  convey  the  idea  of 
moral  purity  as  its  essential  meaning,  but  separa- 
tion; and  is,  therefore,  applied  to  animals  and  things 
as  well  as  to  man  and  God.  When  the  word  is  used 
of  men,  animals,  places,  or  things,  the  essential 
meaning  is  that  they  are  set  apart,  separated  from  a 
common  to  a  sacred  use,  to  the  service  of  God. 
Other  ideas  are  developed  from  this,  so  that  from 
the  idea  of  that  which  was  set  apart  being  cere- 
monially clean  or  holy,  it  expresses  that  which  was 
intrinsically  so. 

When  the  term  holiness  is  applied  to  God  and 
given  the  sense  of  "moral  purity"  or  "freedom 
from  all  sin,"  it  logically  leads  to  the  search  for  an 
ultimate  rule,  the  discussion  pertaining  thereto  being 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  33 

so  prominent  in  moral  philosophy.  Unless  words 
are  unmeaning,  to  define  God's  holiness  as  moral 
purity  implies  a  standard  for  God  as  well  as  man. 

If  the  etymological  signification  is  that  of  sepa- 
ration, what  element  in  the  divine  nature  does  it 
denote  ?  Oehler  says  : 

"As  the  designation  of  a  divine  attribute,  there 
evidently  lies  in  it  primarily  a  negative  element, 
by  which  it  designates  a  state  of  apartness,  God's 
raising  himself  above  all  others.  So  Jehovah,  as 
the  Holy  One,  stands  first  in  opposition  to  the  other 
imaginary  gods,  Ex.  xv.  n  :  'Who  is  like  thee 
among  the  gods?  Who  is  like  thee,  glorious  in 
holiness  ?'  And,  then,  also  in  opposition  to  all  that 
is  of  the  creature,  or,  more  generally  expressed,  to 
all  that  is  not  he  himself,  Isa.  xi.  25 :  'To  whom 
will  ye  compare  me  that  I  may  be  like  ?  saith  the 
Holy  One.'  In  other  words,  as  the  Holy  One,  God  is 
he  who  is  raised  absolutely  above  the  world.  Com- 
pare Ps.  cxix.  2-5,  where  God's  elevation  above  all 
people  is  connected  with  his  holiness  ;  Isa.  v.  16, 
in  which  the  truth  that  the  holy  God  sanctifies  him- 
self in  justice  corresponds  to  his  being  exalted  in 
judgment.  (Compare  ii.  17).  Accordingly  this  divine 
elevation  is  God's  absolute  uniqueness  (i  Sam.  ii.  2:) 
'  There  is  none  like  Jehovah,  for  there  is  none  but 
thee.'  The  positive  expression  for  God's  absolute 
elevation  and  uniqueness  would  be,  that  in  his 
transcendence  above  the  world,  and  in  his  apartness 
from  the  creature,  God  is  he  who  ever  preserves  his 
own  proper  character,  maintaining  himself  in  that 
being  which  is  distinct  from  every  thing  created" 
4 


34  ATONEMENT. 

We  thus  see  in  what  sense  the  idea  of  separation 
applies  to  God.  This  idea  is  still  further  developed, 
for  as  Schmeider  says  : 

"Holiness  would  not  be  holiness,  but  exclusive- 
ness,  if  it  did  not  presuppose  God's  entrance  into 
multifarious  relations,  and  thereby  the  revelation 
and  communication  of  himself." 

Hence,  Oehler  adds  another  element : 

"This  element  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  divine 
holiness  contains  not  only  the  divine  self-main- 
tainance,  but  also  the  divine  self-disclosure  since 
God  as  the  Holy  One  does  not  remain  in  himself, 
but  gives  effect  to  his  holiness  out  of  himself,  by 
instituting  a  separation  in  the  world,  for  his  own 
aims,  electing  a  people  out  of  the  mass  of  the 
nations  of  the  world,  accepting  them  as  his  property 
and  impressing  on  the  ordinances  which  he  gives 
to  this  people,  and  on  the  historical  providence  by 
which  they  are  guided,  the  stamp  of  this  separation 
from  worldliness,  and  of  this  specific  relation  to 
himself.  See  as  to  the  principal  passage,  Lev.  xx. 
26 :  ( I  am  holy,  and  so  I  have  separated  you  from 
among  the  nations  to  be  mine.'  " 

These  are  the  fundamental  ideas  that  underlie  the 
Bible  presentation  of  the  holiness  of  God,  but  we 
see  it  still  further  developed;  and  again  we  quote 
Oehler : 

"  I^et  us  consider  what  sort  of  fear  it  is  that  seizes 
man  when  God  is  revealed  as  the  Holy  One.  It  is 
evidently  not  simply  the  feeling  of  creature  weak- 
ness, but  predominantly  and  specifically  the  feeling 
of  human  sinfulness  and  impurity  (Isa.  vi.  5,  and 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  35 

others).  Hence,  it  follows  that  the  divine  holiness, 
even  if,  as  absolute  perfection  of  life,  it  involves  the 
negation  of  all  bonds  of  creature  finitude  (from 
which  passages  like  Isa.  xl.  25,  are  explained), 
is  nevertheless  mainly  separation  from  the  impurity 
and  sinfulness  of  the  creature,  or,  expressed  posi- 
tively, the  clearness  and  purity  of  the  divine  nature, 
which  excludes  all  communion  with  that  which  is 
wicked.  In  this  sense  the  symbolical  designation 
of  the  divine  holiness  is  light  (compare  Isa.  x.  17)." 
Men  are  fond  of  proclaiming  that  "God  is  love,'' 
but  the  other  thought  that  "  God  is  light"  is  in 
danger  of  being  overlooked.  Yet  it  is  as  true  that 
God  is  light,  and  in  the  same  application,  as  that 
God  is  love. 

SECTION  VI.  —  The  Divine  Righteousness. 

Righteousness  and  justice  are  in  the  Bible  synon- 
ymous words,  being  translations  of  the  same  He- 
brew word. 

The  root  is  plV  (tsadaq)  "  to  be  right,  straight. " 
Gesenius  defines  p^¥  (tsaddiq)  : 

"  i.  Just,  righteous — that  is,  doing  justice,  spoken 
of  a  judge  or  king  who  dispenses  justice  and  de- 
fends the  right.1' 

It  is  translated  ujust"  and  "righteous."    Oehler 

says : 

4 '  The  word  p*?S  (tsaddiq,  righteous)  expresses 
what  is  straight  and  right,  in  the  sense  that  God  in 
his  government  always  does  what  is  suitable ;  name- 
ly, first,  what  answers  fully  to  his  aim ;  and  second- 


36  ATONEMENT. 

ly,  what  answers  to  the  constitution  of  the  object 
of  the  divine  action.  Specially,  but  not  exclusively, 
the  sphere  in  which  the  HD^V  (fsedaqah,  righte- 
ousness) manifests  itself  is  the  judicial  activity  of 

God According  to  Gen.  xviii.  25,  Jehovah 

is  judge  of  all  the  earth,  and  as  such  he  will  do 
right,  and  not  permit  the  lot  of  the  godless  to  fall 
upon  the  righteous. ' ' 

This  is  sufficiently  clear,  and  points  out  an  ele- 
ment of  justice  that  is  important — that  of  action  by 
rule  and  measure. 

Theologians  distinguish  justice  in  various  ways. 
Thus  Dr.  Hodge  says  : 

u  The  absolute  justice  of  God  is  the  infinite  moral 
perfection  or  universal  righteousness  of  his  being. 

The  relative  justice  of  God  is  his  infinitely 
righteous  nature,  viewed  as  exercised  in  his  rela- 
tion to  his  moral  creatures,  as  their  moral  governor. 

This  last  is  called  rectoral,  when  viewed  as  exer- 
cised generally  in  administering  the  affairs  of  his 
universal  government,  in  providing  for  and  govern- 
ing his  creatures  and  their  actions.  It  is  called 
punitive  or  vindicatory,  when  viewed  as  demand- 
ing and  inflicting  the  adequate  and  proportionate 
punishment  of  all  sin,  because  of  its  intrinsic 
demerit. ' ' 

If  Dr.  Hodge  means  that  the  demand  is  inherent 
in  the  justice,  so  that  without  any  legal  penalty, 
justice  itself  demands  and  inflicts  punishment,  we 
must  dissent.  It  is  the  law  that  makes  the  demand 
in  human  governments,  justice  inflicts  the  penalty. 
In  the  divine  government  there  is  the  administra- 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  37 

tive  demand  of  the  law,  and  also  the  demand  that 
arises  from  the  holiness  of  God. 

God's  justice, -whether  exercised  in  rewarding  or 
punishing,  is  always  the  same.  The  theological 
distinctions  tend  to  confuse. 

SECTION  Mil.  — The  Jealousy  of  God. 

The  Bible  very  fully  presents  the  idea  of  God's 
jealousy. 

"For  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God." 
Ex.  xx.  5. 

"  For  the  Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  even 
a  jealous  God."  Deut.  iv.  24. 

"  Do  we  provoke  the  Lord  to  jealousy?  Are  we 
stronger  than  he?"  i  Cor.  x.  22. 

See  also  Ex.  xxiv.  14;  Deut.  vi.  15;  xxix.  20; 
xxxii.  16;  Josh.  xxiv.  19;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  58;  Ixxix.  5; 
Rev.  ii.  4,  etc. 

As  to  God's  jealousy  Oehler  says: 

u  This  divine  zeal  is  the  energy  of  the  divine  ho- 
liness  It  turns  itself  avengingly  against 

every  violation  of  the  divine  law.  In  virtue  of  his 
HSOp  (kinah,  jealousy),  the  holy  God  extirpates 
all  that  sets  itself  in  opposition  to  him.  God's 
jealousy  turns  especially  against  idolatry,  by  which 
the  divine  uniqueness  is  assailed,  see,  e.g.,  Deut. 
xxxii.  21,  and  generally  against  all  sin  by  which 
God's  name  is  desecrated." 

As  light  is  the  appropriate  symbol  of  God's  holi- 
ness, fire — "a  consuming  fire" — is  the  symbol  of 
his  jealousy.  And  again,  it  is  as  true  that  God  is 


38  ATONEMENT. 

a  consuming  fire,  as  it  is  that  God  is  love.  By  a 
comparison  of  the  verses  that  speak  of  God  as  holy, 
it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  closely  connected  with  the 
thought  of  his  anger  or  wrath. 

Oehler  says  : 

uThe  inner  essential  connection  of  wrath  with 
the  divine  holiness  is  made  especially  clear  by  the 
passage  (Isa.  x.  17)  :  '  The  light  of  Israel  becomes  a 
fire,  and  his  Holy  One  a  flame,  which  burns  and  con- 
sumes his  thorns  and  briers. '  Because  wrath  is  a 
manifestation  of  divine  holiness,  the  occasion  for 
its  outburst  (as  Ritschl  and  Diestel  have  rightly 
urged)  does  not  lie  in  a  capricious  divine  humor  or 
natural  malignity,  as  the  gods  of  the  heathen  fell 
into  a  passion,  but  wholly  in  the  person  smitten  by 
it.  If  a  man  denies  and  rejects  the  testimony  of 
the  holy  God  which  was  given  to  him,  justice  must 
be  exercised  upon  him  in  his  resistance  to  God's 
will,  which  alone  is  right,  by  his  being  reduced  to 
his  own  nothingness." 

Of  course  when  the  Bible  uses  such  terms  as 
anger,  wrath,  indignation,  and  vengeance,  as  ap- 
plied to  God,  the  idea  of  malice,  hatred,  or  vindic- 
tiveness  can  have  no  place.  In  us  anger  partakes 
of  the  feelings  of  our  fallen  nature;  and  hence 
anger,  as  experimentally  known,  and  the  ideas  grow- 
ing out  of  this  experience,  can  not  be  applied  to 
God.  Yet  there  must  be  something  in  the  divine 
nature — a  reality — back  of  these  expressions,  that 
is  more  fitly  represented  by  these  terms  than  by  any 
others. 


NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES.  39 

Wrong-doing,  assailing  as  it  does  the  divine  holi- 
ness, arouses  the  divine  jealousy  (the  zeal  of  holi- 
ness against  all  that  opposes  it),  and  enkindles  the 
divine  anger  against  the  sinner.  This  anger,  being 
real,  the  Deity  must  be  appeased,  propitiated,  be- 
fore man  can  be  saved. 


CHAPTER  III. 

SIN    AND    PENALTY. 

In  the  Bible  sin  is  presented  under  two  aspects. 

First,  as  a  nature. 

Second,  as  transgression. 

These  are  important  distinctions  and  are  funda- 
mental if  we  are  to  have  intelligent  conceptions  of 
the  atonement. 

The  fact  that  sin  exists  as  depravity,  or  nature, 
is  abundantly  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  as  will  be 
seen  by  a  study  of  such  passages  as  Gen.  vi.  5,  6; 
Ps.  li.  1-5;  Rom.  i.  21-25;  i.  28-31;  iii.  9-18;  Jer. 
xvii.  9;  Keel.  ix.  3,  etc. 

Among  theologians  the  distinction  is  made  of 
sin  as  actual  and  original.  By  actual  sin  is  meant 
a  violation  of  a  known  rule  of  duty,  by  original 
sin  the  pollution  or  depravity  of  the  nature.  The 
term  "original  sin"  is  ambiguous  and  misleading; 
we  shall  therefore  substitute  sin  as  depravity  and 
sin  as  transgression. 

SECTION  I. — Sin  as  Depravity. 

In  defining  what  is  meant  by  depravity,  the  fol- 
lowing points  are  presented  by  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  : 

UA11  men,  without  exception,  begin  to  sin  as 
soon  as  they  enter  upon  moral  agency. ' ' 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  41 

This  being  simply  a  question  of  fact  will  not  be 
denied. 

' '  They  are  all  born  with  an  antecedent  and  pre- 
vailing tendency  in  their  nature  to  sin. ' ' 

This  is  depravity.  It  has  been  recognized  by 
men,  apart  from  revelation.  It  was  taught  by  the 
old  philosophers — notably  by  Plato.  We  read  that 
after  Adam's  fall  he  begat  a  son  in  his  own  image; 
and  as  like  produces  like,  fallen  humanity  can  only 
bring  forth  a  depraved  offspring.  Depravity  is  the 
result  of  the  law  of  heredity  by  which  the  corrup- 
tion is  reproduced  in  the  offspring. 

u  This  innate  tendency  is  itself  sin  in  the  strict- 
est sense.  It  is  inherently  ill-deserving,  as  well  as 
polluting  and  destructive,  and  without  any  reference 
to  its  origin  in  Adam,  it  fully  deserves  God's  wrath 
and  curse,  and  except  when  expiated  by  the  blood 
of  Christ  is  always  visited  with  that  curse." 

This  statement  we  can  not  receive.  It  shows 
confusion  of  thought  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
work,  and  exposes  the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment to  unanswerable  objections. 

Sin  as  nature  always  leads  to  actual  sin;  and  on 
the  ground  of  this  tendency,  unfits  for  heaven. 
Unless  provision  is  made  to  remove  this  unfitness, 
no  man  can  be  saved.  This  provision  is  made  by 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  not  by  his  death  and 
sufferings. 

Corruption  of  nature  brings  certain  results,  such 
as  separation  from  God,  and  consequent  suffering 
and  sorrow;  but  these  results  are  not  the  penalty  of 
sin,  but  its  inevitable  consequence.  As  logical 


42  ATONEMENT. 

consequences,  having  the  relation  of  cause  and 
effect,  they  can  never  be  borne  by  a  substitute,  any 
more  than  one  man  can  drink  poison  and  another 
receive  the  effect.  The  only  way  we  can  be  saved 
from  the  consequences  is  to  be  redeemed  from  the 
depravity  itself. 

Sin  as  transgression,  however,  exposes  to  a  pen- 
alty; and  between  this  penalty  and  the  sin  there  is 
no  such  infallible  connection,  otherwise  substitu- 
tion would  be  impossible. 

A  consequence  is  not  a  penalty;  hence  we  distin- 
guish between  them,  one  standing  connected  with 
sin  as  nature,  the  other  with  sin  as  transgression. 
God's  provision  for  the  one  is  the  expiation  of 
Christ,  and  for  the  other  his  resurrection  life. 

"Who  was  delivered  for  our  offenses,  and  was 
raised  again  for  our  justification." — Rom.  iv.  25. 

While  we  believe  that  this  depravity  is  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  and  unfits  for  heaven,  we  do  not  be- 
lieve that  it  can  be  expiated.  Expiation  for  deprav- 
ity, a  logical  part  of  the  Calvinistic  scheme,  leads 
to  innumerable  theories  about  the  nature  and 
origin  of  depravity  itself.  Of  these  the  principal 
are : 

First.  That  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls,  who, 
having  actually  apostatized  in  some  former  exist- 
ence, are  justly  exposed  to  the  penalty  of  the  law. 
Dr.  B.  Beecher  held  that  these  pre-existent  spirits 
were  the  angels  who  kept  not  their  first  estate, 
born  as  men  in  order  that  they  might  be  saved. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  43 

Second.  That  all  souls  were  created  simultaneously 
with  that  of  Adam,  and  in  some  way  consented  to 
his  sin,  so  as  to  be  justly  exposed  to  its  penalty. 

Third.  That  all  souls  were  in  Adam — that  is,  they 
were  created  at  the  time  Adam  was,  and  were  in 
him  potentially  and  actually,  and  propagated  from 
him  to  his  descendants. 

Fourth.  The  doctrine  of  Realism — that  the  spirits 
of  men  are  not  separate  substances,  but  that  human- 
ity is  one  single  substance,  the  souls  of  individuals 
being  but  its  manifestations  through  their  bodily 
organs.  This  universal  soul  having  fallen  and 
sinned  in  Adam,  its  manifestations  in  each  individ- 
ual are  corrupt. 

Fifth.  The  dogma  that  Adam  was  constituted  the 
Federal  Head,  or  representative,  of  the  race,  and 
that,  therefore,  God  imputes  to  us  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin.  This  is  the  Calvinistic  theory.  Dr. 
A.  A.  Hodge  thus  presents  this  dogma  of  imputa- 
tion : 

"Imputation  ...  is  simply  to  lay  to  one's 
charge  as  a  just  ground  of  legal  procedure,  whether 
the  thing  imputed  antecedently  belonged  to  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  charged,  or  for  any  other  rea- 
son he  is  justly  responsible  for  it." 

"The  imputation— that  is,  the  judicial  charging 
of  Adam's  sin  to  us — is  rather  to  be  considered  as 
contemplating  the  race  as  a  whole,  as  one  mortal 
body,  than  as  a  series  of  individuals.  The  race  was 
condemned  as  a  whole,  and  hence  each  individual 
comes  into  existence  in  a  state  of  just,  antenatal 
forfeiture.  .  .  .  The  imputation  of  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  apostatizing  act  to  us  in  common  leads 


44  ATONEMENT. 

judicially  to  spiritual  desertion  in  particular,  and 
spiritual  desertion  leads,  by  necessary  consequence, 
to  inherent  depravity." 

This  theory  of  imputation  and  the  dogma  of  the 
Federal  Headship  of  Adam,  of  which  it  is  a  part, 
carries  with  it  the  logical  consequence,  that  all  men 
are  damned  before  they  are  born,  unless  by  a  sover- 
eign act  of  mercy  God  elects  some  of  them  to  eter- 
nal life.  This  is  a  consistent  part  of  a  system  that 
teaches  that  God  has  from  all  eternity  fore-ordained 
some  to  eternal  damnation. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Federal  Headship  of  Adam 
teaches  that  Adam  was  placed  in  the  garden  in 
a  state  of  probation,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for 
the  race.  To  this  probation  it  is  taught  that  the 
following  principles  applied : 

1.  That  every  moral  agent  was  created  holy, 

2.  Yet  in  a  state  of  instable  moral  equilibrium; 

3.  Hence,  confirmation  in  a  state  of  holiness  is  a 
divine  gift,  not  included  in  the  natural  endowments 
of  any  creature, 

4.  Always  suspended  upon  conditions  of  perfect 
obedience  during  a  period  of  probation.     If  Adam 
had   obeyed   he   would   have  been  confirmed  and 
made  impeccable. 

The  reasons  given  why  Adam's  probation  was 
also  that  of  his  descendants,  are : 

1.  God  had  a  right  to  order  as  he  pleased. 

2.  Probation  was  thus  ordered  in  the  very  best 
condition  for  it,  as  Adam  had  no  infancy,  no  evil 
surroundings,  influences,  etc. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  45 

3.  Adam's   natural   relation    to   his   descendants 
made  him  the  proper  person  to  represent  them,  be- 
cause of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race. 

4.  The  headship  of  Adam  lays  a  foundation  for 
the  headship  of  Christ. 

According  to  this  theory  heaven  was  promised  to 
Adam  and  his  descendants  on  the  ground  of  his 
obedience,  while  the  entire  race  are  justly  con- 
demned to  eternal  despair  for  his  disobedience. 

As  the  logical  counterpart  of  this,  Christ  frees  from 
the  penalty  of  sin  by  his  vicarious  sufferings  and  death 
and  gives  us  a  title  to  heaven  on  the  ground  of  his 
law  keeping,  which  is  imputed  for  righteousness. 

The  dogma  of  the  Federal  Headship  of  Adam 
teaches  that  we  are  justly  condemned  for  a  sin  com- 
mitted by  another  before  we  were  born,  and  in 
committing  which  we  had  no  part  and  exercised  no 
volition.  It  makes  Adam  our  representative,  but 
gives  us  no  choice  in  electing  him  as  such.  It  is 
from  first  to  last  arbitrary.  If  this  be  just,  then 
logically  it  is  also  just  to  elect  some  to  eternal  life 
and  "pass  by"  the  rest.  The  principle  is  the 
same  in  either  case — the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of 
God.  Our  condemnation  for  the  sin  of  another  is 
in  conflict  with  those  ideas  of  right  common  to  the 
race;  hence,  it  can  only  be  defended  on  the  ground 
of  God's  sovereignty.  "It  is  just  because  God 
willed  it."  If  we  accept  this,  the  doctrine  of  a 
limited  atonement  can  be  received  also,  as  it  rests 
upon  the  same  principle.  The  dogma  of  a  limited 
atonement  really  necessitates  that  of  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin. 


46  ATONEMENT. 

To  reject  a  limited  atonement  and  still  hold  the 
dogma  of  the  Federal  Headship  of  Adam  results 
logically  in  Universalism.  If  we  recognize  any 
rights  of  man,  if  we  abandon  the  ground  that  all  is 
of  God's  sovereign  will  without  any  reference  to 
the  creature,  then  we  can  not  be  held  justly  con- 
demned for  one  man's  sin  without  receiving  the 
benefits  of  the  obedience  of  the  one  man.  The  one 
should  be  as  general  as  the  other.  The  only  con- 
sistent logical  conclusions  from  the  dogma  of  "im- 
putation" would  be  either  a  limited  atonement,  or 
Universalism,  as  we  recognize  or  not  any  rights 
in  man. 

We  do  not  believe  this  dogma  of  imputation,  be- 
cause it  is  foreign  to  the  Scriptures. 

Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ,  "the  figure  of  him 
that  was  to  come,"  but  the  first  Adam  was  not  the 
expression  of  God's  thought  and  purpose  for  the 
race.  That  is  found  in  the  second  Adam,  not  the 
first.  Here  is  the  great  mistake  of  the  schools; 
making  the  first  Adam  the  expression  of  God's  pur- 
pose for  the  race,  they  bring  in  Christ  to  restore 
and  gain  for  us  what  Adam  should  have  done. 
This  fails,  ignobly  fails,  to  comprehend  the  scope, 
the  grandeur,  and  the  glorious  extent  of  Christ's 
work. 

To  put  Adam  under  the  moral  law  to  win  heaven 
for  himself  and  his  posterity,  to  find  eternal  issues 
in  the  rewards  and  penalties  of  the  Old  Testament, 
is  the  great  root  of  error  in  the  church,  especially 
as  to  the  atonement,  and  has  well-nigh  reduced 
the  doctrine  of  substitution  to  an  absurdity. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  47 

Adam  was  never  told  of  heaven,  nor  was  its  pos- 
session promised  him  on  the  ground  of  his  obe- 
dience. All  this  is  man's  thought,  not  God's.  As 
we  will  show,  the  death  penalty  was  corporeal,  and 
nothing  more;  and  his  obedience  was  the  ground  of 
his  continuance  in  the  garden,  but  not  of  his  title 
to  heaven. 

Never  in  any  age  was  heaven  ever  promised  on 
the  ground  of  obedience;  even  under  the  law  it  was 
"This  do  and  them  shalt  live,"  but  never  "This 
do  and  thou  shalt  have  a  place  in  heaven."  The 
consistent  thought  of  the  Jew  was  always  of  bless- 
ings on  this  earth,  as  an  examination  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  abundantly  show. 

The  great  absurdity  of  a  double  substitution 
grows  out  of  error  in  respect  to  Old  Testament  pen- 
alties. 

We  hold  the  theory  of  the  Natural  Headship  of 
Adam,  rejecting  the  Federal.  The  name  is  of  very 
little  importance,  but  as  the  dogma  to  which  it  be- 
longs has  become  thoroughly  identified  with  the 
name,  we  prefer  calling  our  theory  the  natural. 
Discarding  the  doctrine  of  imputation  as  in  conflict 
with  both  reason  and  revelation,  we  still  believe 
that  Adam  was  truly  the  representative  of  the  race, 
because  the  divinely  constituted  head  of  it.  As  the 
first  man,  from  whom  all  others  have  come,  he  of 
necessity  stood  charged  with  the  interests  of  man- 
kind. But  this  representative  character  was 
founded  upon  natural  law — that  of  heredity — a  law 
that  is  distinctly  recognized  by  science  as  among 
the  facts  of  nature.  By  virtue  of  this  law,  a  cor- 


48  ATONEMENT. 

rupt  nature,  and  all  that  it  implies,  came  upon 
Adam's  descendants.  In  this  there  is  nothing  but 
what  is  in  harmony  with  reason,  science,  and  reve- 
lation, which  last  indicates  the  principle  when  it 
says : 

' i  How  can  he  be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman  ?  ' ' 
— Job  xxv.  4. 

"That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."— 
John  iii.  6. 

The  distinction  between  the  Natural  and  Federal 
theories  of  the  Headship  of  Adam  are,  briefly : 

First.  While  both  agree  that  a  depraved  nature 
has  been  transmitted  from  Adam  to  his  posterity, 
the  dogma  of  imputation  makes  this  a  judicial  in- 
fliction (see  Hodge  above),  the  other  makes  it  the 
necessary  result  of  the  law  of  heredity. 

Second.  The  Federal  theory  includes  in  the  cov- 
enant of  works  made  with  Adam  the  destiny  of  his 
descendants,  Adam's  probation  being  theirs.  The 
Natural  theory  makes  the  covenant  to  involve  only 
his  own  title  to  life,  and  not  that  of  his  descend- 
ants. 

What  was  this  covenant  (if  we  call  it  such)  ? 

' c  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely 
eat: 

But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the  day  that 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." — Gen. 
ii.  16,  17. 

Not  one  word  here  about  his  descendants,  not 
even  a  promise  for  obedience,  but  simply  a  penalty 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  49 

for  disobedience.  The  whole  record  shows  that 
there  is  entire  silence  as  to  any  such  tremendous 
issues  being  involved  as  the  federal  theory  de- 
mands, and  the  story  shows  that  Adam  was  ignorant 
of  them. 

If  Adam  had  raised  children  in  the  garden,  their 
personal  obedience  would  have  entitled  to  life,  and 
their  disobedience  would  have  wrought  only  per- 
sonal ruin. 

The  Bible  does  not  teach  any  thing  as  to  the  sin 
of  Adam,  but  the  fact  that  depravity  and  all  that  it 
implies  comes  to  us  as  the  result,  not  the  penalty,  of 
Adam's  sin. 

The  difference  between  the  two  theories  is  brought 
out  by  a  comparison  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith  with  that  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church.  We  quote  from  the  Confession  as  adopted 
by  the  founders  of  the  church  and  from  the  Revised 
Confession  adopted  in  1883.  Cumberland  Presby- 
terians hold  the  "  Medium  Theology." 

For  convenience  in  making  the  comparison  we 
place  them  in  parallel  columns  : 

WESTMINSTER  CON-     CUMBERLAND  ORIG-        CUMBERLAND     OF 
FESS1ON.  INAL. 


"They    being   the  "They   being    the  "They    being   the 

root  of  all  mankind,  root  of  all  mankind,  root  of  all  mankind, 

the  guilt  of  this  sin  by  their  sin  all  were  sin  entered  into  the 

•was     imputed,     and  made     sinners,    and  world  through  their 

the  same  death  in  sin  the    same    death    in  act,  and  death  by  sin, 

and  corrupted  nature  sin,    and     corrupted  and  so  death  passed 

conveyed  to  all  their  nature,  conveyed   to  upon  all  men."  —  Sec- 

posterity,  descending  all    their     posterity,  tion  xviii. 

from  them  by  ordi-  descending          from 

nary   generation."  —  them      by    ordinary 

Chapter  vi.   Section  generation."  —  Chap- 

iii.  ter  vi.  Section  iii. 


50  ATONEMENT. 

WESTMINSTER  CON-     CUMBERLAND  ORIG-        CUMBERLAND    OF 
FESSION.  INAL. 


"The    first    cove-  "The  first  coven-  "The  first  coven- 

nant  made  with  man  ant  made  with  man  ant  made  with  man 

was    a   covenant    of  was   a    covenant   of  was    a   covenant   of 

works,    wherein    life  works,    wherein    life  works,    wherein    life 

was      promised      to  was      promised      to  was      promised      to 

Adam,    and    in    him  Adam,    and    in    him  Adam     upon    condi- 

to  his  posterity,  upon  to  his  posterity,  upon  tion    of   perfect    and 

condition   of  perfect  condition  of  perfect  personal  obedience." 

and  personal  obedi-  and  personal  obedi-  —  Section  xxii. 

ence."  —  Chapter  vii.  ence."  —  Chapter  vii. 

Section  ii.  Section  ii. 


The  Bible  teaching  is  set  forth  in  the  following 
texts: 

u  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous." — Rom.  v.  19. 

' '  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned." — Rom.  v.  12. 

"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive." — i  Cor.  xv.  22. 

We  believe  these  verses  present  fully  all  that  the 
Bible  teaches  as  to  the  connection  of  his  descendants 
with  Adam's  sin.  They  embody  nothing  but  what 
is  implied  in  the  Natural  Headship  of  Adam.  Cer- 
tainly the  theory  of  imputation  is  not  contained  in 
them.  This  will  be  more  fully  shown  when  we 
come  to  consider  death  as  a  penalty. 

SECTION  II. — Sin  as  Transgression. 

Sin  as  transgression  differs  from  sin  as  depravity. 
The  one  exists  as  an  inseparable  part  of  man's 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  51 

nature,  and  altogether  apart  from  his  own  control; 
the  other  requires  an  action  of  the  will  choosing  in 
opposition  to  a  known  rule  of  duty. 

It  is  because  of  this  last  element  that  we  deny 
that  sin  as  transgression,  and  purely  as  such,  is  fol- 
lowed by  suffering  as  a  logical  necessary  conse- 
quence. For.  example,  if  a  man  commits  theft, 
what  suffering  follows  the  act  as  cause  is  followed 
by  effect  f  Absolutely  none.  If  the  person  robbed, 
or  the  government  under  which  he  lives,  inflicts 
punishment,  it  must  be  inflicted  by  them,  if  in- 
flicted at  all.  This  is  a  penalty,  not  a  consequence. 
Many  a  man  has  committed  theft  without  suffering 
for  it  in  this  life.  There  is  not,  and  in  the  nature 
of  things,  can  not  be,  such  suffering  following 
transgression  as  effect  follows  cause.  If  there  were, 
all  punishment  by  law  would  be  unjust. 

That  men  sometimes  suffer  from  their  transgres- 
sions is  true;  but  it  is  an  accident,  not  a  necessary 
consequence.  Thus,  disease  sometimes  follows 
adultery,  but  this  is  the  result  of  the  physical  condi- 
tion, not  of  the  sin.  The  same  result  follows  from 
the  physical  condition  in  honorable  marriage. 

Of  course,  some  sins  are  violations  of  physical 
laws,  and  this  brings  suffering;  but  for  that  very 
reason  it  becomes  a  sin.  There  is  no  sin  in  eating, 
but  a  vicious  habit  of  eating  to  excess  violates  the 
laws  of  health,  and  brings  suffering.  It  then,  but 
not  till  then,  becomes  the  sin  of  gluttony. 

Cause  and  effect  are  immutable  and  inseparable. 
There  is  no  suffering  in  the  experience  of  our  race 
that  is  inseparable  from  transgression. 


52  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  III. — Suffering  as  Consequence  and  as 
Penalty. 

It  is  important  that  we  give  a  definite  meaning 
to  the  word  penalty,  as  it  is  often  used  so  loosely 
as  to  become  ambiguous.  Webster  defines  it : 

"i.  Penal  retribution;  punishment  for  crime  or 
offense;  the  suffering  in  person  or  property  which 
is  annexed  by  law  or  judicial  decision  to  the  com- 
mission of  a  crime,  offense,  or  trespass. 

2.  The  suffering  to  which  a  person  subjects  him- 
self, by  covenant  or  agreement,  in  case  of  non-ful- 
fillment of  stipulations;  forfeiture;  fine." 

A  penalty  is  suffering,  or  loss,  threatened  for  the 
violation  of  a  known  rule  of  duty;  and  when  en- 
forced is  always  a  positive  infliction. 

A  penalty  must  never  be  confounded  with  a  con- 
sequence. Here  is  the  fruitful  source  of  confusion, 
as  it  is  often  used  in  both  senses  by  writers  and 
speakers  without  any  discrimination. 

A  penalty  and  a  consequence  differ : 

First.  A  consequence  has  the  relation  of  effect  to 
cause;  a  penalty  has  no  such  relation. 

Second.  A  consequence  always  follows  the  act;  a 
penalty  may  or  may  not. 

Third.  A  consequence  follows  the  act  without 
any  intervention;  a  penalty  requires  the  intervexi- 
tion  of  an  intelligent  agent  for  its  infliction. 

Fourth.  A  consequence  is  inseparable  from  its 
cause,  and  therefore  can  not  be  set  aside  or  remitted ; 
a  penalty  is  separate  and  distinct,  and  may  or  may 
not  be  remitted. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  53 

Fifth.  A  consequence  can  never  be  suffered  vica- 
riously, because  cause  and  effect  are  inseparable;  a 
penalty  may  be  borne  vicariously,  because  it  is  pos- 
sible to  remit  it. 

Sixth.  A  man  can  only  be  saved  from  a  conse- 
quence by  being  saved  from  its  cause,  which  is  al- 
ways a  matter  of  power  and  not  of  grace ;  a  penalty 
may  be  set  aside,  on  just  grounds,  by  the  lawful 
authority,  and  is  always  an  act  of  grace. 

.Sili  as  nature  is  followed  by  certain 
.sill  as  transgression  exposes  to 

Depravity  and  transgression  are  so  closely  joined 
in  our  experience,  that  we  shall  find  the  suffering 
connecting  itself  with  depravity,  so  interwoven  in 
our  experience  with  our  sinful  acts,  that  it  will  be 
hard  to  recognize  it  as  only  a  consequence  of  de- 
pravity. 

Before  we  leave  this  subject  we  may  refer  to  the 
use  of  the  word  punishment.  In  many  ways  it  is 
synonymous  with  penalty,  but  underlying  it  is  the 
thought  of  personal  demerit  linked  with  the  suffer- 
ing. For  this  reason  it  has  been  reprobated  by 
many  of  the  best  thinkers.  Rev.  Joseph  Cook  uses 
the  word  "chastisement"  instead  of  punishment 
when  speaking  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ;  but 
chastisement  is  for  the  good  of  the  person  suffering, 
and  is,  therefore,  inapplicable  to  the  sufferings  of 
Christ. 

Penalty  is  the  best  word  we  can  use,  as  it  does  not 
express  in  itself  the  thought  of  personal  demerit. 
You  can  not  truly  punish  an  innocent  man,  but  you 
can  execute  upon  him  fat  penalty  of  the  law.  A 


54  ATONEMENT. 

punishment  can  not  properly  be  borne  vicariously; 
a  penalty  may,  as  it  indicates  more  the  suffering 
without  reference  to  the  demerit.  A  man  who  gets 
drunk  is  fined  ten  dollars,  this  being  the  penalty  for 
the  offense.  A  friend  pays  the  fine,  thus  meeting, 
or  satisfying,  the  demand  of  the  law  vicariously 
without  any  transfer  of  personal  demerit.  Penalty 
is  the  word  we  have  chosen. 

SECTION  IV. — Death. 

As  this  word  is  so  closely  connected  with  sin,  it 
demands  a  separate  examination.  It  is  presented 
under  three  aspects  in  the  Bible : 

1.  Physical  Death. 

2.  Spiritual  Death. 

3.  The  Lake  of  Fire. 

The  central  thought  in  every  use  of  the  word  is 
that  of  separation. 
Physical  death  is  the  separation  of  soul  and  body. 

"Let  this  child's  soul  come  into  him  again.  And 
the  Lord  heard  the  voice  of  Elijah;  and  the  soul  of 
the  child  came  into  him  again,  and  he  revived" — i 
Kings  xvii.  22,  23. 

' '  Willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and 
to  be  present  with  the  Lord." — 2  Cor.  vi.  8. 

u  Having  a  desire  to  depart  and  to  be  with  Christ. ' ' 
—Phil.  i.  23. 

' '  The  time  of  my  departure  is  at  hand. " — 2  Tim. 
iv.  6. 

Spiritual  death  is  an  immutable  necessary  con- 
sequence of  3in.  "God  is  light,"  and  it  is  only  in 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  55 

the  light  that  we  can  have  communion  with  him. 
(i  John  i.  5-7.)  How  can  God  sanction  or  have 
fellowship  with  wrong-doing?  It  is  simply  impos- 
sible. Sin,  therefore,  of  necessity  separates  from 
God.  The  divine  holiness,  which  is  u  mainly  sep- 
aration from  the  impurity  and  sinfulness  of  the 
creature,  or  expressed  positively,  the  clearness  and 
purity  of  the  divine  nature, '  *  excludes  all  commun- 
ion with  that  which  is  sinful,  and  thus  of  logical 
consequence  sin  separates. 

"  Sin,  when  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth  death." 
— James  i.  14. 

This  is  the  key  to  another  difficulty — the  fact  of 
eternal  punishment.  Nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  it 
taught  that  eternal  punishment  is  the  penalty  of  sin 
— that  is,  it  is  nowhere  said  that  if  a  man  tell  a  lie 
or  is  guilty  of  any  other  offense  he  will  be  punished 
forever  for  it  To  insist  that  eternal  punishment  is 
the  penalty,  involves  us  in  hopeless  confusion  and 
innumerable  difficulties  regarding  the  nature  of 
Christ's  work  for  us. 

Those  who  teach  that  eternal  punishment  is  the 
penalty  of  sin  are  driven  to  one  of  two  positions  in 
defense  of  it,  in  order  to  avoid  making  the  penalty 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  offense. 

First.  That  sin  being  against  an  infinite  God  be- 
comes infinite  in  demerit,  and  deserves,  for  that 
reason,  infinite  suffering. 

This  fiction  of  infinite  demerit  is  rank  nonsense, 
utterly  unknown  to  the  Scriptures  and  indefensible 
at  the  bar  of  reason.  It  is  usually  coupled  with 
the  explanation  that  Chrga-Sufeings  were  infinite 


56  ATONEMENT. 

in  degree,  in  the  place  of  ours,  which  would  have 
been  infinite  in  duration. 

From  any  stand-point  this  is  objectionable  and  but 
serves  to  aid  the  enemies  of  religion  to  find  argu- 
ments against  the  truth. 

(a)  As  it  was  only  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
that  suffered,  how  could  he  as  man  have  endured 
suffering  infinite  in  degree?  The  infinite  has  no 
bounds.  God  would  have  had  to  work  a  miracle  to 
constitute  his  humanity  equal  to  divinity  before  it 
would  be  possible. 

Anselm  said : 

"  Such  a  penalty  can  only  be  paid  by  God  him- 
self, and  as  a  penalty  for  man,  must  be  paid  under 
the  form  of  man. ' ' 

This  is  logically  sound,  as  it  could  only  be  paid  by 
God  himself.  If  the  words  mean  any  thing  they  teach 
that  it  was  God  who  suffered,  but  this  has  been  re- 
jected by  the  church  in  all  ages.  The  doctrine  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  infinite,  logically  carries 
with  it  the  necessity  for  God  himself  to  endure  the 
suffering. 

(ft)  If  sin  is  infinite  demerit,  to  meet  the  claim  a 
divine  person  must  die  for  every  sinner.  That  is, 
on  the  ground  of  an  exact  equivalent.  If  the  sin 
of  each  individual  merits  infinite  suffering,  as 
Christ's  sufferings  can  not  be  more  than  infinite, 
they  can  only  avail  for  one  individual. 

(c)  If  the  demand  is  for  infinite  suffering,  the 
punishment  must  be  infinite  both  in  degree  and  du- 
ration. The  infinite  knows  no  bounds.  Infinity 
and  eternity  are  two  very  different  things. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  57 

(d)  The  theory  is  in  opposition  to  the  Bible  doc- 
trine of  degrees  of  punishment,  which  it  logically 
denies. 

A  finite  being  can  never  do  any  thing  that  merits 
infinite  punishment,  that  would  be  to  reason  that 
the  finite  can  produce  the  infinite. 

Second.  Others,  to  account  for  such  a  penalty  as 
eternal  punishment,  speak  of  the  sinner  as  eternally 
sinning,  and,  therefore,  as  eternally  punished.  This 
also  is  without  Bible  authority  and  out  of  harmony 
with  the  final  triumph  of  right  there  revealed. 

We  believe  that  as  the  saved  are  raised  above  the 
possibility  of  sin,  the  lost  are  sunk  below  it;  and 
that  in  hell  God's  power  will  be  supreme,  and 
' '  every  knee  shall  bow. ' ' 

All  these  difficulties  are  avoided  when  we  see 
that  the  eternity  is  no  part  of  the  penalty,  but  one 
of  the  inevitable  results  of  sin  as  nature.  While  a 
sinful  nature  remains  forever,  sin  as  transgression 
will  cease.  The  eternity  stands  connected  with  the 
nature  as  its  consequence,  because  if  it  unfits  for 
heaven,  the  unfitness  remains  as  long  as  the  deprav- 
ity endures.  As  God's  provision  for  man's  redemp- 
tion has  been  rejected,  and  the  depravity  can  not 
be  otherwise  removed,  the  depraved  nature  eternally 
separates  from  God.  The  penalty  of  sin  is  another 
thing,  admitting  of  degrees,  the  "many  stripes" 
or  "the  few." 

There  are  usually  very  undefined  views  as  to  the 
relation  of  physical  death  to  law  and  penalty, 
largely  due  to  a  failure  to  apprehend  dispensational 
truth. 


58  ATONEMENT. 

The  first  penalty  is  found  in  Gen.  ii.  17,  and  sug- 
gests the  question,  What  death  is  meant  ?  Those 
who  deny  that  it  is  corporeal,  reason  that  Adam  did 
not  die  physically  the  day  that  he  sinned.  This, 
however,  overlooks  the  most  precious  lesson  of  the 
fall.  It  was  in  Eden  that  the  great  truth  of  substi- 
tution first  appears. 

The  first  effect  of  sin  was  that  Adam  saw  that  he 
was  naked;  and  we  find  him  making  for  himself  a 
garment  of  fig-leaves.  But  when  the  voice  of  God 
is  heard,  Adam  is  afraid;  for  he  says  : 

"lam  naked." 

Yes,  naked  even  with  his  fig-leaves.  Fig-leaves 
did  well  enough  until  he  was  called  to  go  into  God's 
presence,  and  then  he  sees  their  worthlessness.  ' '  I 
am  naked."  Then  comes  the  judgment  in  the 
garden;  but  mingled  with  this  judgment  is  the 
precious  promise  of  a  Savior.  No  sooner  does  sin 
appear  than  atonement  is  proclaimed.  The  seed  of 
the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  but  it 
shall  bruise  his  heel.  Victory  gained  by  the  Savior, 
but  victory  through  suffering,  his  heel  will  be 
bruised.  The  heel  only — the  lower  part — a  sug- 
gestion of  the  sufferings  of  his  humanity.  No 
sooner  is  this  blessed  proclamation  made  than 
Adam's  faith  grasps  it;  for  we  read  that  at  once  he 
called  his  wife,  as  the  mother  of  this  promised  seed, 
Havvah  (Eve)— that  is, ' '  life, "  or  "  living.' '  How 
suggestive  all  this  as  following  so  close  upon  the 
promise!  And  then,  as  faith  appropriates  and 
saves,  instantly  the  Lord  made  them  u  coats  of 
skins."  To  provide  these  coats  of  skins,  there 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  59 

must  have  "been  the  death  of  the  victim,  the  shed- 
ding of  the  blood.  Why  was  this  blood  shed? 
Why  did  God  make  a  coat  of  skins  ?  Why  did  it 
follow  so  close  upon  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel 
and  Adam's  expression  of  faith  in  that  promise? 
Because  this  blood  was  shed  in  the  offering  of  a  sac- 
rifice. Thus,  by  the  death  of  a  substitute  the  same 
day,  Adam's  life  is  spared.  All  this  is  harmonious. 
If  God  is  to  save  by  a  vicarious  suffering,  this  would 
be  proclaimed  in  the  garden,  at  least  in  type;  and 
so  we  find  it  in  the  coat  of  skins.  Adam  fell,  but 
the  same  day  a  Savior  is  preached  to  him;  and 
while  he  is  banished  from  the  garden,  by  faith  in 
that  Savior  he  leaves  it  saved  by  the  grace  of  God. 
Substitution  removes  the  difficulty,  arising  from 
the  fact  that  Adam  did  not  die  that  day. 

We  hold  the  penalty  threatened  in  the  garden 
was  corporeal  death.  That  it  meant  more  we  do 
not  believe  the  Bible  teaches.  Not  one  word  can 
be  found  that  points  beyond.  Not  one  sentence 
that  to  Adam  was  presented  any  other  future  than 
life  in  Eden.  It  is  purely  an  invention  of  the 
schools.  That  corporeal  death  was  meant  is  seen 
in  many  Scriptures. 

"Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  re- 
turn." 

Here  in  the  repetition  of  the  penalty  the  charac- 
ter of  the  death  is  pointed  out  in  language  that  can 
not  be  misunderstood. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans,  Paul,  speaking  of 
the  fall  and  its  effects  on  the  race,  presents  three 
things. 


60  ATONEMENT. 

First.    u  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world." 

This  is  depravity;  and  as  the  depraved  nature 
leads  to  the  actual  transgression,  all  sin  may  be  thus 
traced  to  its  source  in  Adam.  John  goes  beyond^ 
tracing  it  back  to  the  devil,  with  whom  we  have 
the  ' '  origin  of  evil. ' ' 

Second.  uAnd  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed 
upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned." 

This  was  the  death  he  could  point  to  as  undenia- 
bly reigning  from  Adam  to  Moses;  and  as  this  could 
be  done  only  of  corporeal  death,  it  indicates  what 
death  is  meant.  The  universal  reign  of  death  from 
Adam  to  Moses  showed  that  sin  was  universal, 
even  though  they  did  not  sin  "after  the  similitude 
of  Adam's  transgression,"  having  no  positive  law. 

Third.  ( *  Judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation ' ' 
— "  upon  all  men  to  condemnation." 

Death  proclaimed  the  universal  condemnation  of 
the  race.  This  whole  argument  is  obscure  from  any 
other  stand-point  than  that  of  corporeal  death.  The 
truth  is  still  further  established  by  comparison  with 
parallel  passages. 

u  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive." — i  Cor.  xv.  22. 

Paul  is  speaking  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body; 
that  is  his  theme,  and  the  death  that  stands  con- 
nected with  this  all  must  admit  is  corporeal.  To 
deny  it  is  to  deny  the  resurrection. 

' '  For  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead" — i  Cor.  xv.  21. 

It  is  objected  that  corporeal  death  was  in  the 
world  before  Adam,  and  for  that  reason  death  could 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  61 

not  be  the  result  of  his  sin.  But  this  is  a  failure 
to  discriminate.  Death  in  the  animal  and  vege- 
table kingdom  there  undoubtedly  was,  for  the 
Bible  speaks  of  Adam  as  eating  fruit^  which  im- 
plies death;  while  the  fossils  found  in  the  rocks, 
even  of  the  oldest  secondary  strata,  tell  beyond  ques- 
tion of  animal  death  long  before  the  advent  of  man. 
Otherwise  there  could  be  no  fossils.  But  the  death 
of  an  animal  is  very  different  from  that  of  a  plant. 
A  plant  has  life,  an  animal  has  more — a  soul.  Not 
an  immortal  soul,  not  a  soul  in  the  popular  sense, 
but  still  a  soul — a  nephesh — as  the  Bible  often 
affirms.  For  this  reason  the  animal  has  instinct, 
affection,  memory,  and  will.  Then  its  death  is 
different  from  that  of  the  plant.  Man  not  only  has 
with  the  animal  a  soul,  but  possesses  an  immortal 
spirit.  How  very  different  is  the  meaning  of  death 
when  used  of  man  because  of  this  immortality  and 
because  of  what  it  leads  to.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  Bible  to  warrant  the  assumption  that  the  death 
that  came  by  man  was  entailed  upon  the  beast  for 
Adam's  sin. 

That  Adam  was  in  any  sense  a  different  being 
physically,  is  not  probable,  although  possible,  as 
we  can  not  tell  what  influence  depravity  has  on  the 
human  organism.  The  long  lives  of  the  antedilu- 
vians, the  sudden  appearances  and  disappearances  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  indicate  some  changes,  but  how 
great  we  can  not  say.  It  is  sufficient  to  remember 
that  there  was  special  provision  needed  for  earthly 
immortality  as  indicated  by  what  is  said  of  the  tree 
of  life  and  the  effect  of  its  fruit. 


6s  ATONEMENT. 

Corporeal  death,  as  the  Scriptures  quoted  show, 
was  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin;  and  because  of  that 
sin,  death  has  come  upon  the  race  of  mankind. 
This  is  all  the  Bible  teaches. 

It  is  by  trying  to  make  this  a  final  sentence  in- 
volving the  eternal  issues,  that  theologians  have 
built  up  the  dogma  that  all  our  race  has  been  ad- 
judged to  eternal  despair  because  of  Adam's  sin. 

That  this  death  was  a  shadow  of  the  second  is 
true,  but  the  second  death  it  can  not  be,  as  that  is 
after  the  judgment.  Spiritual  death  it  could  not 
be,  as  that  is  never  a  penalty,  but  a  consequence; 
and  the  death  threatened  was  administrative,  the 
governmental  award  for  actual  transgression. 

This  corporeal  death  was  also  provisional  in  its 
character,  introduced  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
final  purposes  of  God  for  wise  and  benevolent  rea- 
sons— checking  the  growth  of  wickedness,  as  seen 
in  the  long  lives  of  the  antediluvians,  and  preparing 
for  the  final  bringing  into  the  son's  place  in  the 
redemption  of  the  body. 

This  provisional  character  of  death  must  not  be 
forgotten;  and  when  its  mission  has  been  accom- 
plished, this  first  death  shall  come  to  an  end. 

"And  death  and  hell  (hades)  were  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire." 

Coming  to  death  under  the  law,  it  is  important 
that  we  have  in  mind  the  difference  in  dispensations. 
The  Jews,  as  such,  were  the  earthly  people,  called 
to  an  earthly  inheritance,  while  the  church  consists 
of  the  heavenly  people,  who  are  called  to  a  heavenly 
inheritance.  The  two  callings  are  separate  and 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  63 

distinct,  and  give  to  each  dispensation  its  distinctive 
character.  Nothing  but  confusion  can  come,  if  in 
our  expositions  of  the  Scripture  this  dispensational 
truth  is  overlooked.  Long  life,  freedom  from  dis- 
ease and  earthly  greatness,  were  promised  as  re- 
wards for  faithfulness;  temporal  calamities,  disease, 
and  death,  being  inflicted  for  disobedience.  The 
passages  that  teach  this  are  so  numerous  that  it 
seems  needless  to  quote  them.  As  blessings  for 
obedience,  we  read : 

* '  If  thou  shalt  hearken  diligently  unto  the  voice 
of  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  observe  and  to  do  all  his 

commandments The  Lord  shall  make  thee 

plenteous  in  goods,  in  the  fruit  of  thy  body,  and 
in  the  fruit  of  thy  cattle,  and  in  the  fruit  of  thy 
ground,  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto  thy 
fathers  to  give  thee.  The  Lord  shall  open  unto 
thee  his  good  treasure,  the  heaven  to  give  the  rain 
unto  thy  land  in  his  season,  and  to  bless  all  the 
work  of  thine  hand  :  and  thou  shalt  lend  unto  many 
nations,  and  thou  shalt  not  borrow." — Deut.  xxviii. 
1-14,  etc. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  penalties  for  disobedience, 
we  read : 

* '  Cursed  shall  be  the  fruit  of  thy  body,  and  the 
fruit  of  thy  land,  the  increase  of  thy  kine,  and  the 

flocks  of  thy  sheep The  Lord   shall   send 

upon   thee   cursing,   vexation,  and  rebuke 

The  Lord  shall  smite  thee  with  a  consumption, 
and  with  a  fever,  and  with  an  inflammation,  and 
with  an  extreme  burning,  and  with  the  sword,  and 


64  ATONEMENT. 

with  blasting,   and  with  mildew;    and  they  shall 
pursue    thee    until    thou   perish."  — Deut.    xxviii. 

15-68. 

Passages  like  these  can  be  quoted  by  the  score  in 
proof  of  our  statement  as  to  the  penalties  and  re- 
wards of  the  earthly  people. 

The  earthly  character  of  the  calling  must  not  be 
lost  sight  of. 

' c  I  have  been  young,  and  now  am  old,  yet  have  I 
not  seen  the  righteous  forsaken,  nor  his  seed  beg- 
ging bread." — Ps.  xxxvii.  25. 

Apply  this,  as  it  is  generally  done,  to  believers  in 
the  present  day,  and  it  will  lead  to  painful  uncer- 
tainty and  doubt.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  thou- 
sands of  the  children  of  Christians  have  begged  for 
bread.  What  then  of  the  promises  to  which  the 
psalmist  refers  so  triumphantly?  Their  applica- 
tion was  to  the  Jew,  to  whom  they  were  and  are 
fulfilled.  Although  cast  off  for  a  season,  or  rather 
set  aside  from  their  place  on  the  earth — 

uThe  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  re- 
pentance."— Rom.  xi.  29. 

Hence,  they  are  to  be  grafted  in  again.  In  the 
meantime  in  great  measure  they,  as  a  people,  are 
finding  the  promises  still  verified,  always  so  when 
they  are  living  obedient  lives.  How  rare  is  it  to 
find  a  Jewish  pauper  !  What  prosperity  attends 
them  in  business  !  How  even  now  they  are  lending 
to  many  nations  !  As  the  earthly  people,  they  en- 
joy a  freedom  from  disease  that  other  races  are 
strangers  to,  and  longer  lives  than  other  people. 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  65 

Statistics  show  this.  Not  to  burden  our  pages  with 
side  issues,  the  ecclesiastical  registers  of  Prussia 
show  that  while  the  average  life  of  the  Gentile  is 
thirty-four  that  of  the  Jew  was  forty-six;  and  this 
in  connection  with  the  fact  that  the  birth  rate  was 
greater. 

It  is  so  very  important  that  we  distinguish  this 
earthly  and  heavenly  calling,  that  we  would  say 
there  can  be  no  sound  exegesis  without  it. 

Bach  dispensation  has  its  own  distinctive  char- 
acter. That  of  law  was  designed  to  show  the  evil 
of  sin,  and  the  utter  ruin  it  had  wrought.  It  was  a 
school-master  to  lead  men  to  Christ. 

v '  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law  ?  It  was  added 
because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed  should  come 
to  whom  the  promise  was  made." — Gal.  iii.  19. 

' '  Now  we  know  that  what  things  soever  the  law 
saith,  it  saith  to  them  who  are  under  the  law:  that 
every  mouth  may  be  stopped  and  all  the  world  may 
become  guilty  before  God." — Rom.  iii.  19. 

' '  We  were  kept  under  the  law,  shut  up  to  the 
faith  which  should  afterward  be  revealed*  Where- 
fore the  law  was  our  school-master  to  bring  us  unto 
Christ."— Gal.  iii.  23,  24. 

It  was  a  great  teaching  dispensation,  setting  forth 
in  type  and  symbol  man's  ruin  and  sin,  proclaiming 
everywhere  the  universal  condemnation  of  the  race. 

This  being  the  design  of  the  law,  we  may  expect 
that  its  rewards  and  penalties  will  have  the  same 
character.  This  is  the  Bible  thought,  so  that  Paul 
speaks  of  the  law  as  '  'the  ministration  of  death, ' '  and 
the  "ministration  of  condemnation."  This  is  obscure 
6 


66  ATONEMENT. 

unless  we  see  that  its  penalty  was  physical  death. 
"This  do  and  thou  shalt  live"  not  obtain  heaven. 
It  was  given  for  the  administration  of  God's  govern- 
ment on  the  earth  in  the  Theocracy.  True,  none 
escaped  death,  but  in  this  one  fact  is  the  great  lesson 
that  '  ^  shuts  us  up  ' '  to  Christ.  The  law  promised  life 
on  the  condition  of  obedience,  but  as  there  were  no 
"doers  of  the  law,"  all  died.  Thus  death  con- 
stantly proclaimed  their  utter  ruin  and  condemna- 
tion, and  the  worthlessness  of  their  own  righteous- 
ness. On  this  view  it  was  the  means  of  reaching 
the  conscience  on  the  broadest  scale  and  of  prepar- 
ing men  for  the  coming  of  Christ. 

That  the  law  speaks  of  the  first  death,  not  of  the 
second,  is  clear.  In  the  very  heart  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments it  is  embodied : 

' '  That  thy  days  may  be  long  in  the  land. ' ' 
A  promise  distinctly  to  the  Jew,  to  whom  u  the 
land  "  belonged,  and  the  law  was  given. 

When  Moses  is  exhorting  to  obedience  he  urges 
as  a  motive: 

"That  it  may  go  well  with  thee  and  with  thy 
children  after  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  prolong 
thy  days  on  the  earth. — Dent.  iv.  40;  v.  16;  vi.  3, 
18;  xii.  25,  28;  xxii.  7;  Eph.  vi.  3,  etc. 

All  through  the  Pentateuch,  in  all  that  is  said  of 
law  we  find  no  mention  of  rewards  and  penalties 
that  indicate  any  reference  to  the  eternal  issues. 

Such  passages  as  Ezekiel  xviii.  20-22  are  made 
plain  by  this  exposition.  The  Hebrew  had  no  word 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  67 

for  the  self,  hence  the  word  nephesh  (soul)  was  gen- 
erally used.  It  is  the  word  most  generally  trans- 
lated "person."  u  Eight  souls  saved"  is  synony- 
mous with  eight  persons.  Soul  should  be  trans- 
lated "person"  in  Ezekiel,  as  a  careful^  examin- 
ation will  show.  "That  soul  shall  be  cut  off," 
means  person.  So  "  the  soul  that  sinneth  "  is  "  the 
person  .that  sinneth."  Under  law,  all  failure  in 
obedience  incurred  death,  from  which  they  were 
saved,  on  repentance,  by  a  sin-offering. 

That  this  is  the  true  idea  of  the  penalty  of  the 
law  is  confirmed  by  the  New  Testament : 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  as  it  is  written, 
Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree." — Gal. 
iii.  13. 

It  was  for  this  reason  that  we  find  death  woven 
and  interwoven  in  every  warp  and  web  of  the  juris- 
prudence of  the  Theocracy;  and  judgment  after 
judgment  coming  upon  individuals  and  nations; 
famine,  pestilence,  and  wars  are  let  loose  and  de- 
stroy their  millions;  so  that  the  dispensation  was  a 
very  carnival  of  death.  All  this  is  easily  under- 
stood if  we  recognize  the  true  character  of  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law.  The  curse  swept  over  the  race, 
and  everywhere  was  heard  the  sound  of  lamentation 
and  woe. 

4 '  The  earth  also  is  defiled  under  the  inhabitants 
thereof ;  because  they  have  transgressed  the  laws, 
changed  the  ordinance,  broken  the  everlasting 
covenant.  Therefore  hath  the  curse  devoured  the 


68  ATONEMENT. 

earth,  and  they  that  dwell  therein  are  desolate: 
therefore  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  are  burned, 
and  few  men  are  left" — Isa.  xxiv.  5,  6. 

The  record  shows  that  it  was  always  so.  When 
Moses  came  down  from  the  mount  with  the  law  in 
his  hand,  the  law  that  the  people  had  covenanted  to 
obey  (Ex.  xix.),  and  finds  them  worshiping  the 
golden  calf,  he  gives  the  command  to  execute  the 
penalty  of  the  law. 

' '  And  the  children  of  Levi  did  according  to  the 
word  of  Moses :  and  there  fell  of  the  people  that 
day  about  three  iho^t.sand  souls. " — Ex.  xxxii.  28. 

In  contrast,  when  Peter  preached  u  about  three 
thousand  ' '  are  saved.  Why  under  law  do  we  find 
death,  corporeal  death,  so  often  being  inflicted  when 
Israel  sins,  if  it  is  not  the  penalty  of  the  law  ? 

How  different  now  ! 

"Who  hath  abolished  death,  and  hath  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  gospel." 

This  does  not  mean  that  he  has  abolished  it  in 
such  a  sense  that  men  will  not  die,  for  its  provis- 
ional character  still  remains;  but  as  penalty,  as  the 
curse  of  the  law,  it  is  abolished.  The  "ministra- 
tion of  death"  ceases.  No  more  does  it  speak  to 
men  as  under  law,  while  incorruptibility  and  life 
have  been  brought  to  light — made  manifest — their 
full  meaning  proclaimed.  The  earthly  gives  place 
to  the  heavenly,  and  the  eternal  issues  are  brought 
into  the  forefront. 

The  penalty  threatened  in  the  garden  and  under 
law — that  is,  the  penalty  as  specified — death,  must 
not  be  confounded  with  the  consequences  of  de- 

t 


SIN  AND  PENALTY.  69 

pravity  on  the  one  hand,  or  with  those  that  will  be 
inflicted  at  the  judgment  on  the  other.  These  re- 
main the  same  in  every  age. 

Spiritual  death  being  the  consequence  of  deprav- 
ity, all,  in  every  age,  experience  it. 

The  penalties  that  will  be  inflicted  at  the  judg- 
ment are  for  men  in  every  age,  under  law,  or  with- 
out law.  These  will  not  be  the  infliction  of  a 
penalty  previously  named,  but  such  suffering  or 
loss  as  will  be  merited  by  each  individual  case,  God 
rendering  to  every  man  according  to  his  deserts. 
Hence,  Christ  can  suffer  without  bearing  either  in 
kind  or  degree  what  the  sinner  would  have  to  bear. 
Death,  literal  death,  being  a  specific  penalty  of  law 
must  be  specifically  borne;  but  beyond  this,  sub- 
stitution only  requires  a  suffering  that  meets  the 
demands  of  law,  and  this  in  the  judgment  will  .be 
determined  by  the  lawgiver,  and  not  by  the  law; 
otherwise  degrees  of  punishment  would  be  impos- 
sible. Therefore,  the  same  divine  Lawgiver,  who 
will  * '  render ' '  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds, 
knew  what  to  '''render"  to  Christ  as  the  sinner's  sub- 
stitute, and  in  this  rendering  would  estimate  the 
person  of  the  substitute  and  all  that  was  involved. 

Unless  we  make  this  discrimination  we  have  no 
penalty  for  those  who  lived  from  Adam  to  Moses. 

While  the  penalty  in  the  garden  and  under  the 
law,  in  its  governmental  form,  was  corporeal  death, 
still  in  every  age  the  eternal  issues  were  involved 
in  the  question  of  sin,  and  these  were  seen  and  ap- 
prehended. Very  dimly,  it  may  be,  but  still  seen, 
so  that  death  threw  its  shadow  beyond  the  grave. 


;o  ATONEMENT. 

What  was  this  shadow?  i{ 'After  death  the  judg- 
ment. ' '  If  the  eternal  issues  had  not  been  known, 
there  could  have  been  no  "ministration  of  death," 
and  death  would  have  been  simply  the  penalty  of 
criminal  law. 

As  to  the  lake  of  fire,  the  second  death,  it  will 
be  the  final  doom  of  the  unsaved  of  every  age. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

RESTITUTION,    OR    RETRIBUTION. 

The  Bible  speaks  of  the  anger  and  wrath  of  God 
as  enkindled  against  the  sinner,  for  which  reason 
God  must  be  propitiated.  While  we  admit  that 
these  terms  when  used  of  God  are  accommodated, 
we  insist  that  they  express  a  reality  and  not  a 
myth. 

SECTION  I.  —  The  Reason  for  Suffering  as 
Penalty. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  God's  anger  leads  to  the 
infliction  of  suffering;  which  awakens  the  inquiry, 
Why  is  this  suffering  inflicted  ?  The  answers  may 
be  reduced  to  three  if  we  leave  out  that  which 
simply  refers  it  to  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of 
God. 

First.  That  they  are  inflicted  for  the  reformation 
of  the  offender. 

According  to  this,  God's  fatherly  love  leads  him 
to  desire  the  good  of  his  children;  and  if  that  good 
needs  suffering  to  secure  it,  then  his  fatherly  love 
will  lead  him  to  inflict  it.  This,  of  course,  means 
that  all  suffering  is  chastisement.  Not  to  dwell 
upon  the  question  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  other 
than  to  deny  that  the  Bible  ever  affirms  that  rela- 


72  ATONEMENT. 

tionship  of  a  sinner,  the  theory  that  all  punishment 
is  for  the  good  of  the  offender  is  open  to  many 
objections. 

1.  It  makes  the  sufferings  of  Christ  unmeaning 
and  unnecessary.     They  could  not  be  vicarious,  for 
suffering  inflicted  on  one  person  could  not,  as  chast- 
ening, influence  another.      If  they  were  not  vicari- 
ous, they  could  not  influence  sinners.     Unmeaning 
suffering  is  no  evidence  of  love,  any  more  than  sui- 
cide would  be.      To  require   the  death   of  Christ 
simply  for  a  moral  effect  upon  the  sinner,  would  be 
an  evidence  of  weakness  in  God's  government. 

2.  Chastisement  is  referred  in  the  Bible  to  the 
love  of  God  : 

"Whom  the  I^ord  loveth  he  chasteneth. " 
But  the  penalties  inflicted  for  sin  are  referred  to 
his  anger.     Hence,  the  theory  involves  a  contra- 
diction. 

3.  Chastisement,  being  for  the  good  of  the  of- 
fender, ought  to   be  inflicted,  therefore,  if  penalty 
is  chastisement;  remission  of  the  penalty  would  be 
an  injury,  and  therefore  wrong. 

4.  If  penalty  is  chastisement,  eternal  punishment 
is  impossible,  for  endless  suffering  can  never  be  for 
the  good  of  the  offender.     As   the   Bible  teaches 
"eternal  punishment,"  the  theory  is  untenable. 

5.  The  nature  of  the  punishment  precludes  the 
theory  of  chastisement.     How  can  it  be  reconciled 
with  the  flood  and  the  cities  of  the  plain  ? 

6.  Suffering,  as  such,  tends  to  harden  the  heart. 
See,  for  example,  the  plagues  of  Egypt. 


RESTITUTION.  73 

7.  The  Bible  never  affirms  that  penalty  is  for  the 
good  of  the  offender. 

Second.   That  the  object  is  to  deter  from  sin. 

It  has  been  often  pointed  out  that  this  practically 
reduces  the  justice,  jealousy,  and  anger  of  God  to 
forms  of  benevolence;  and  this  is  in  reality  the 
philosophy  of  its  advocates.  So  also  with  the  ex- 
planation that  it  is  for  the  good  of  the  offender. 
The  question  resolves  itself  into  this  :  Is  disinter- 
ested benevolence  the  whole  of  virtue  ?  Dr.  Hodge 
says : 

"  i.  Some  exercises  of  disinterested  benevolence, 
for  example,  natural  paternal  affection,  are  purely 
instinctive,  and  have  no  positive  moral  character. 

2.  Some  exercises  of  disinterested   benevolence, 
such  as  the  weak  yielding  of  a  judge  to  sympathy 
with  a  guilty  man  or  his  friends  are  positively  im- 
moral. 

3.  There   are  virtuous   principles   incapable  of 
being  resolved  into  disinterested  benevolence,  such 
as  proper  prudential  regard  for  one's  own  highest 
good;  aspiration  and  effort  after  personal  excellence; 
holy  abhorrence  of  sin  for  its  own  sake;  and  just 
punishment   of  sin    in   order   to  vindicate   righte- 
ousness. 

4.  The  idea  of  oughtness  is  the  essential  constitu- 
tive idea  of  virtue.  No  possible  analysis  of  the  idea  of 
benevolence  will  give  the  idea  of  moral  obligation. 
This  is  simple,  unresolvable,  ultimate.     Oughtness 
is  the  genus,  and  benevolence  one  of  the  species 
comprehended  in  it." 

We  regard  this  as  unanswerable,  and  as  showing 
that  the  fundamental  philosophy  of  these  theories 
is  unsound. 


74  ATONEMENT. 

If  the  object  of  suffering  is  to  deter  others,  what 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ?  If  there  is  no  real  de- 
mand for  them,  if  they  are  not  vicarious,  then  they 
can  never  strengthen  government.  It  is  only  when 
the  suffering  is  known  to  be  justly  inflicted  that  it 
strengthens.  To  take  an  innocent  citizen  and  hang 
him,  when  it  is  known  that  he  is  innocent,  will 
never  deter  from  crime.  It  would  be  an  evidence 
of  weakness  destructive  to  the  government,  because 
it  would  be  a  failure  to  recognize  moral  distinctions. 
Yet  on  the  governmental  theory,  this  is  all  that  can 
be  made  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  He  did  not 
suffer  for  any  wrong  he  himself  had  done.  The 
sufferings  were  not  to  meet  any  demand  in  the 
divine  nature.  They  were  then  unmeaning. 

Third.  That  the  penalty  is  the  necessary  alterna- 
tive of  the  demand  for  restitution. 

All  seeming  difficulties  grow  out  of  the  assump- 
tion that  suffering  inflicted  purely  as  penalty  is 
wrong.  If  this  is  true,  all  penalty  should  be  abol- 
ished. Underlying  the  idea  of  penalty  is  the  de- 
mand for  restitution,  retribution  being  the  only 
alternative  in  a  moral  government  when  restitution 
is  not  made. 

"  If  a  man  shall  steal  an  ox,  or  a  sheep,  and  kill 
it  or  sell  it;  he  shall  restore  five  oxen  for  an  ox,  and 
four  sheep  for  a  sheep. 

If  a  thief  be  found  breaking  up,  and  be  smit- 
ten that  he  die,  there  shall  no  blood  be  shed  for 
him. 

If  the  sun  be  risen  upon  him,  there  shall  be  blood 


RESTITUTION.  75 

shed  for  him;  for  he  should  make  full  restitution; 
if  he  have  nothing,  then  he'  shall  be  sold  for  his 
theft. 

If  the  theft  be  certainly  found  in  his  hand  alive, 
whether  it  be  ox,  or  ass,  or  sheep;  he  shall  restore 
double."-— Ex.  xxii.  1-4,  etc. 

These  and  similar  texts  bring  out  some  very  im- 
portant and  fundamental  Bible  principles,  and  such 
as  bear  directly  on  penalty. 

1.  The  general  principle  of  restitution.     This  all 
will  accept  as  right.     If  a  man  does  wrong,  all  be- 
lieve he  should  right  the  wrong. 

2.  That  in  making  restitution,  more  is  required 
than   the  simple  return   of  the   thing  taken  or  its 
equivalent.     Why  is  this?     The   answer  can   only 
be  that  in  some  way  this  was  necessary  to  full  res- 
titution.    Theft  is  not  only  an  offense  against  the 
individual,  but  is  a  menace  to  the  government,  a 
contempt  for  law,  and  an  interference  with  the  peace 
and  security  of  society.     Therefore,  the  insult  to 
law  must  be  wiped  out,  the  stability  of  the  govern- 
ment  must   be    vindicated,    and   society   must   be 
assured  that  its  rights  shall  be  respected.     Hence,  a 
demand  for  restitution.     If  these  last  elements  are 
ignored,   the  man's  wrong  has  not  been  righted, 
reparation  has  not  been  made.     This  is  the  prin- 
ciple, and  we 'find  it  carried  out  by  Zacchaeus,  when 
he  said : 

"  If  I  have  taken  any  thing  from  any  man  by 
false  accusation,  I  restore  him  fourfold." 


76  ATONEMENT. 

3.  Where  there  is  failure  to  make  restitution,  it 
exposes  to  privation  and  loss.  A  thief  was  to  be 
sold. 

Here,  and  by  divine  authority,  is  the  foundation 
of  all  penalty.  Restitution,  or  retribution,  the  al- 
ternatives of  law,  the  only  way  in  which  the  maj- 
esty of  the  law  can  be  vindicated  or  government 
sustained.  If  restitution  is  not  made,  to  ignore  the 
offense  is  to  consent  thereunto,  and  bring  ruin  to  the 
government,  the  only  possible  alternative  being  the 
infliction  of  a  penalty.  The  denial  of  this  principle 
is  anarchism. 

4 '  Is  God  unrighteous  who  taketh  vengeance  ? 
God  forbid ;  for  then  how  can  God  judge  the  world  ?' ' 
— Rom.  iii.  5. 

Having  shown  the  principle,  we  are  ready  to 
answer  the  question,  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  retri- 
bution ?  Is  there  a  penalty  for  sin  distinct  from  its 
inevitable  consequences,  to  be  inflicted  upon  the 
wrong-doer  in  the  future  ? 

Before  we  answer  directly,  we  will  investigate  a 
subject  bearing  upon  it,  the  doctrine  that  the  pen- 
alty of  sin  is  "remorse  of  conscience." 

(a)  There  is  no  scripture  for  the  theory,  neither 
can  Bible  statements  be  harmonized  with  it. 

(b]  Our  experiences  as  to   conscience  show  that 
the  greatest  sinner  is  punished  the  ^least  on  this 
theory.     The  fact  is  undeniable  that  as  men  increase 
in  wickedness  the  lashing  of  conscience  becomes 
less  severe,  men  reaching  at  last  a  condition  when 
they   are    u past   feeling,"    and    their    consciences 


RESTITUTION. 


77 


"  seared  as  with  a  hot  iron."  A  moral  citizen  ex- 
periences more  remorse  than  a  hardened  criminal, 
(f)  Conscience  is  not  infallible  as  a  guide,  and 
its  condemnations  and  approvals  are  no  criterion  of 
the  Tightness  or  wrongness  of  an  act.  Many  a  man 
has  suffered  compunction  of  conscience  for  doing 
what,  when  more  fully  enlightened,  he  has  seen  to 
be  right.  For  this  reason,  if  remorse  is  the  penalty 
of  sin,  it  is  often  endured  by  those  who  are  innocent 
of  wrong.  If  penalty  followed  as  cause  and  effect, 
conscience  would  be  infallible  as  a  guide. 

(d)  If  this  is  the  penalty,  it  is  inflicted  after  sin 
has  been  pardoned,  as  the  experience  of  believers 
will  show. 

(e)  If  remorse  is  the  penalty,  then  hell  is  not  a 
place,  but  simply  a  mental  state;  and  to  be  turned 
into  hell  is   synonymous  with  being  turned   into 
one's  self. 

Some  consequences  are  immutably  connected 
with  sin,  such  as  separation  from  God;  others 
are  not,  because  they  depend  upon  other  factors. 
Thus,  the  rule  in  this  life  is  that  as  sin  increases, 
conscience  is  weakened.  This  is  the  law  in  our  ex- 
perience. To  have  an  aroused  conscience,  God 
must  act  by  vivifying,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
awakened  sinner;  or  it  must  be  aroused  by  the 
judgments  that  overtake  the  wrong-doer. 

SECTION  II. — That  God  will  avenge  Wrong- 
doing is  clearly  taught  in  those  Scriptures  that 
speak  of  his  vengeance. 

"Tome  belongeth  vengeance,  and  recompense; 
their  foot  shall  slide  in  due  time :  for  the  day  of  his 


78  ATONEMENT. 

calamity  is  at  hand,  and  the  things  that  come  upon 
them  make  haste." — Dent,  xxxii.  35. 

UO  Lord  God,  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth;  O 
God  to  whom  vengeance  belongeth,  show  thyself." 
— Ps.  xciv.  i  (and  following  verses). 

"  For  jealousy  is  the  rage  of  a  man;  therefore  he 
will  not  spare  in  the  day  of  vengeance. " — Prov. 
vi.  34. 

"For  the  indignation  of  the  Lord  is  upon  all 
nations,  and  his  fury  upon  all  their  armies;  he  hath 

utterly  destroyed  them For  it  is  the  day  of 

the  Lord's  vengeance,  and  the  year  of  recom- 
penses."— Isa.  xxxiv.  3,  4. 

' '  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and  trample 
them  in  my  fury;  and  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled 
upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  rai- 
ments."— Isa.  Ixiii.  3,  4. 

"Avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place 
unto  wrath,  for  it  is  written,  'vengeance  is  mine; 
I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord.'  " — Rom.  xii.  19. 

"Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities 
about  them  in  like  manner,  giving  themselves  over 
to  fornification,  and  going  after  strange  flesh,  are 
set  forth  for  an  example,  suffering  the  vengeance  of 
eternal  fire." — Jude  vii. 

"In  flaming  fire  taking  vengeance  on  them  that 
know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  be  punished  with 
everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power." — 2  Thess. 
i.  8,  9. 


RESTITUTION. 


79 


"Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recom- 
pense, saith  the  L/ord;  and  again  the  Lord  shall 
judge  his  people.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  living  God." — Heb.  x.  30,  31. 

These  scriptures  point  to  a  future  retribution,  a 
positive  infliction  of  suffering  upon  the  wrong-doer. 
See  also  Isa.  xxxv.  4;  Ivii.  3;  lix.  17;  Jer.  1.  15- 
28;  li.  6;  Ezek.  xxv.  14;  xxv.  17;  Nahum  i.  2; 
Mi  call  v.  15,  etc. 

SECTION  III.  —  That  God  will  avenge  Wrong- 
doing on  the  person  of  the  offender,  is  taught  in 
those  Scriptures  that  announce  a  judgment. 

"  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom 
in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee." — Matt. 
xi.  24. 

"But  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of judgment 
and  fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adver- 
saries."— Heb.  x.  27. 

"  It  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after 
this  the  judgment." — Heb.  ix.  27. 

'  To  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment, 
to  be  punished" — 2  Peter  ii.  9. 

"  Reserved  unto  fire  against  the  day  of  judgment 
and  perdition  of  ungodly  men." — 2  Peter  iii.  7. 

"And  they  were  judged  every  man  according  to 
their  works  ...   was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire." 
'  This  is  the  second  death." — Rev.  xx.  13-15. 

It  must  be  plain  from  this  class  of  texts,  that  the 
Bible  teaches  a  future  retribution,  a  positive  inflic- 
tion of  suffering. 


80  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  IV. — That  God  will  punish  sin,  and 
that  this  will  be  a  positive  infliction,  distinct  from 
the  consequences  of  depravity,  is  taught  in  many 
Scriptures. 

(a)  It  is  implied  in  the  language  describing  the 
penalty. 

"Cast  into  hell  fire."— Matt,  xviii.  8. 

"Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  —Matt. 
xxv.  41. 

"The  rich  man  lifted  up  his  eyes  in  hell,  being 
in  torment." — Luke  xvi.  23. 

(b)  It  is  implied  in  every  text  that  speaks  of  delay 
in  punishing. 

' '  Because  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not 
executed  speedily,  therefore  the  heart  of  the  sons 
of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil." — Keel, 
viii.  ii. 

' '  Cut  it  down ;  why  cumbereth  it  the  ground  ?  ' ' 
— Luke  xiii.  7. 

(c)  It  is  implied  in  all  scriptures  which  speak  of 
this  as  a  day  of  grace  and  not  of  judgment. 

If  sin  is  punished  by  inevitable  consequence, 
then  it  is  not  grace;  but  judgment,  constantly  in- 
flicting suffering.  Grace  and  judgment  are  govern- 
mental terms,  and  stand  connected  with  those  sins 
that  are  the  result  of  our  free  volitions.  They 
would  be  out  of  place  as  connected  either  with  cor- 
ruption or  fitness  for  heaven,  as  these  are  not  the 
result  of  will.  They  can  only  apply  where  penalty 
may  or  may  not  be  inflicted. 


RESTITUTION.  81 

(d)  It  is  implied  in  every  text  that  speaks  of  the 
remission  of  sins. 

If  the  punishment  of  sin  has  the  relation  of  effect 
to  cause,  sins  committed  are  always  punished.  Sin 
that  is  punished  is  never  remitted.  Sins  not  com- 
mitted can  not  be  remitted;  that  is  an  absurdity. 
Deliverance  from  depravity  must  never  be  con- 
founded with  remission,  or  pardon.  There  can  be 
no  remission  where  no  wrong  has  been  done;  and 
if  the  wrong  has  been  punished  it  is  not  forgiven. 
We  know  that  this  same  argument  is  urged  against 
substitution  —  that  if  Christ  suffered  the  exact 
equivalent  of  the  sufferings  of  the  saved,  then  their 
sin  being  punished  is  not  remitted.  We  admit  the 
force  of  the  objection  against  the  "bargain  and 
sale ' '  theory,  but  not  holding  this,  it  has  no  force 
against  the  substitution  advocated  in  these  pages. 

We  have  not  exhausted  the  argument,  but  believe 
that  we  have  established,  or  rather  demonstrated, 
that  there  is  a  retribution  for  transgression — that  is, 
a  positive  infliction,  and  from  which  we  may  be 
saved  by  the  work  of  the  L,ord  Jesus. 

The  Bible  uses  figurative  language,  because  we 
can  not  fully  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  suffer- 
ings. If  they  were  such  as  are  experienced  by 
men  here,  the  Bible  would  have  so  presented  them, 
as  there  would  have  been  no  use  for  figurative  lan- 
guage. The  effort  to  define  the  nature  of  these 
sufferings  always  leads  to  difficulties.  The  fact  is 
revealed,  and  that  must  suffice. 

Much  labor  has  been  expended  to  break  the  force 
of  these  scriptures,  an^^TOBii^em  that  to  many 
7 


82  ATONEMENT. 

the  infliction  of  pain,  or  retribution,  is  a  defect  in 
the  divine  nature  to  be  apologized  for.  Such  senti- 
mentality is  destructive  to  all  virtue  and  reverence 
for  God. 

When  we  recognize  that  our  "God  is  light,"  and 
a  "consuming  fire,"  as  fully  as  we  recognize  that 
.he  is  love;  when  we  insist  upon  a  future  retribution, 
as  not  only  possible,  but  as  right,  the  teaching  of 
'the  Bib-e  will  be  more  honored  by  men.  Is  not 
just  here  one  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  modern  pul- 
pit— the  fruitful  source  of  that  lack  of  reverence 
and  godly  fear  that  is  inseparable  from  a  strong 
'Christian  life  ? 

From  the  examination  we  have  thus  made  of  the 
nature  and  attributes  of  God,  of  sin  and  penalty 
.and  retribution,  we  see  why  atonement  was  needed. 
The  need  was  twofold. 

First.  Sin  as  nature,  separating  as  it  does  from 
God,  and  unfitting  for  heaven,  presents  an  absolute 
need  that  must  be  met  before  men  can  be  saved. 
Depravity  must  be  removed,  or  there  can  be  no 
heaven  for  man.  This  need  is  met  by  the  imparta- 
tion  of  Christ's  resurrection  life.  By  this  vital 
union,  which  is  the  result  of  personal  faith,  we  are 
redeemed  from  the  corruption,  and  thus  from  its 
results. 

Second.  Sin  as  transgression,  with  a  future  judg- 
ment for  the  deeds  done  in  the  body,  presents  an- 
other need,  no  less  imperative  than  the  first.  Even 
if  redeemed  from  the  evil  nature,  past  sins  would 
have  to  be  atoned  for.  Paying  to-day's  debts  will 
not  wipe  out  yesterday's  score,  nor  will  honesty  to- 


RESTITUTION.  83 

day  meet  the  demand  of  law  for  the  crime  of  yes- 
terday. Restitution  is  still  demanded.  God's  pro- 
vision for  this  need  is  to  be  found  in  the  death  and 
sufferings  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  A  vicarious  sacrifice 
that  fully  meets  the  demands  of  God,  and  saves 
from  the  judgment  and  all  that  it  implies. 

The  need  for  an  atonement  is  imperative. 

' '  For  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilder- 
ness, even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up." 

' '  Ye  must  be  born  again. ' ' 

That  redemption  from  the  sinful  nature  is  suffi- 
cient for  -salvation  is  only  tenable  on  one  of  two 
suppositions.  Either  that  the  nature  necessitates 
the  transgression,  or  that  the  consequences  of  sin  is 
the  penalty.  This  last  we  have  already  considered, 
and  the  first  is  equally  untenable.  In  the  judgment 
God  will  u  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
deeds"  Nature  is  never  brought  into  judgment. 
If  sin  was  necessitated  by  the  nature,  judgment 
would  be  impossible,  unless  man  was  responsible 
for  the  nature. 

Every  man  knows  that  he  need  not  do  wrong, 
that  not  to  do  it  is  always  possible.  This  con- 
sciousness of  freedom  never  connects  itself  with 
what  is  necessitated.  This  conviction  of  freedom 
is  confirmed  by  the  voice  of  God  and  of  conscience. 
It  is  the  universal  intuition  of  the  race. 

It  is  not  possible  to  meet  the  need  on  any  ground 
known  to  reason  without  atonement. 

"The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up." 


PART  II. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 
CHAPTER  V. 

THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  Bible  teach- 
ing is  the  peculiar  personality  of  the  L,ord  Jesus. 
He  has  impressed  himself  upon  the  world  as  no 
other  ever -did. 

All  history  and  philosophy,  the  rise  and  fall  of 
nations,  the  progress  and  development  of  the  race, 
stand  so  connected  with  him,  that  he  is  the  Sun  of 
our  Race,  the  Day-star  of  Mankind. 

What  wonder  that  in  the  early  days  of  Christian- 
ity men  should  be  occupied  more  with  the  Person 
than  with  the  work  of  Christ,  especially  when  we 
remember  that  the  Bible  demands,  not  that  we  as- 
sent to  a  creed,  or  believe  certain  facts  or  dogmas, 
but  that  we  have  faith  in  a  person  ?  This  has 
been  God's  plan  of  salvation  in  every  age.  The 
truth  as  to  the  Person  may  have  been  seen  but 
dimly  through  type  and  symbol,  or  fully  revealed 
in  the  New  Testament;  but  it  is  the  same  Person, 
and  the  same  faith,  that  saves.  As  the  Lamb 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  85 

slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  he  has  been 
proclaimed  in  every  land  and  age,  and  the  eyes  of 
all  men  have  been  turned  to  him  for  salvation. 
The  old  patriarch,  Job,  in  the  triumph  of  this  faith, 
declares : 

"  I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth;" 
while  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  his  day. 

What  is  the  Bible  statement  about  the  Person  of 
Christ?  Of  course  our  answer  will  discuss  the 
question  only  as  it  bears  upon  the  atonement. 
Three  points  are  embraced  in  the  Bible  statement. 

First.  That  he  was  a  perfect  man,  bone  of  our 
bone,  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  possessing  a  material 
body  and  a  rational  human  soul. 

"And  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and 
in  favor  with  God  and  man." — Luke  ii.  52. 

Second.   That  he  was  very  God. 

4 ;  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God." — John  i. i. 

Third.  That  he  was  but  one  person.  The  Bible 
does  not  teach  that  he  was  God  and  a  man,  but  that 
such  was  the  mysterious  nature  of  the  union  be- 
tween the  two  natures  that  he  was  one  person,  the 
object  of  faith  and  worship  for  his  people.  We 
find  that  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  a  relative 
and  personal  distinction  exists,  indicated  by  the  use 
of  the  personal  pronoun.  No  such  distinction  is 
ever  made  between  the  human  and  divine  nature  of 
Christ.  The  unity  of  the  person  is  an  essential  part 
of  Bible  teaching.  What  bearing  has  the  truth 
of  the  Person  on  atonement  ? 


86  ATONEMENT. 

i 

SECTION  I. — The  Humanity  of  Christ. 

The  popular  idea  of  the  work  of  Christ  is  that 
he  came  to  restore  what  had  been  lost  in  Adam. 
Thus  by  bearing  the  penalty  of  sin,  he  meets  the 
demand  of  justice,  and  by  his  law  keeping  he  pro- 
vides a  righteousness  for  us  that  entitles  us  to  the 
reward  that  Adam  forfeited. 

This,  of  necessity,  leads  to  a  view  of  the  human- 
ity of  Christ  that  obscures  the  moral  glory  of  his 
person,  and  belittles  the  work  he  has  done  for  us. 
If  Christ  rendered  a  vicarious  obedience,  then  his 
humanity  must  have  been  like  Adam's,  fallen  or 
unfallen. 

Some  hold  that  Christ's  humanity  corresponded 
to  that  of  Adam  before  he  sinned.  But  Adam's 
was  a  state  of  innocence.  To  him,  with  his  expe- 
riences, the  moral  law  would  have  been  unmeaning. 
Not  having  a  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  his  was 
pure  innocency.  Christ's  humanity  differs  from 
this,  for  he  clearly  saw  the  nature  and  evil  of  sin, 
and  fully  comprehended  the  meaning  of  the  moral 
law.  Adam  would  not  have  stood  for  one  day  with 
the  surroundings  that  Christ  had. 

Others,  seeing  the  logical  inconsistency  of  affirm- 
ing that  Christ's  human  nature  existed  in  the  same 
state  of  innocency  as  that  of  Adam,  hold  that  he 
was  made  with  all  the  infirmities  and  sinful  dispo- 
sitions of  Adam's  descendants,  but  without  actual 
sin.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  Irving,  who,  how- 
ever, taught  that  Christ  was  delivered  from  this 
depravity  by  the  inner  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  87 

and,  having  wrought  out  his  own  deliverance,  he 
is  able  to  save  others. 

The  great  objection  to  either  of  the  above  views 
of  Christ's  humanity  is  that  they  ignore  the  divin- 
ity and  the  unity  of  his  personality. 

Two  extremes  are  to  be  avoided ;  the  error  of  the 
Nestorians  on  the  one  hand,  and  that  of  the  Euty- 
chians  on  the  other.  The  Nestorians  divided  the 
persons,  thus  practically  denying  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  To  make  Christ  as  man  one  person,  and 
Christ  as  God  another,  throws  every  thing  into  con- 
fusion. The  Eutychians,  on  the  other  hand,  so 
confused  the  two  natures  as  to  destroy  both,  making 
a  union  that  was  neither  God  nor  man,  but  the 
product  of  both.  The  Bible  teaching  indicates  that 
the  truth  is  midway  between  the  two. 

If  there  is  a  real  unity  between  the  divinity  and 
the  humanity  of  Christ,  in  virtue  of  such  union 
Christ's  humanity  must  have  a  character  distinctly 
its  own.  Hence,  it  was  neither  innocent  nor  fallen, 
but  pre-eminently  holy.  Theologians  often  speak 
of  Adam  as  holy,  as  Dr.  Hodge  does,  in  what  we 
have  quoted  from  him  about  the  Federal  Headship. 
But  the  Bible  never  affirms  that  Adam  was  holy; 
nor  does  it  of  any  one  but  Christ,  other  than  in  a 
ritual  sense.  In  Luke  i.  35  we  read: 

' '  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee ;  and  the 
power  of  the  highest  shall  overshadow  thee :  there- 
fore also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of 
thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

While  born  of  a  woman,  and  thus  truly  a  man, 
there  was  a  divine  action  in  his  birth  that  distin- 


88  ATONEMENT. 

guished  him  from  from  all  others,  and  in  virtue  of 
which  he  is  that  ' '  holy  thing. ' '  The  ' '  Holy  One ' ' 
is  the  distinctive  title  of  Christ. 

It  is  strange  that  the  contrast  in  the  humanity  of 
Christ  and  Adam  is  not  more  clearly  seen. 

"The  first  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last 
Adam  a  quickening  spirit" 

"The  first  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy;  the 
second  man  was  the  L,ord  from  heaven. ' ' 

Wonderful  contrast !  What  glorious  blessings  it 
indicates  for  the  Christian  !  Paul,  quoting  the 
language  of  an  Old  Testament  saint,  says : 

"  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have 
entered  the  heart  of  man,  the  things  that  God  hath 
prepared  for  them  that  love  him." 

And  then,  as  standing  upon  the  top  of  the  mount- 
ain, with  a  reach  of  vision  far  beyond  that  of  the 
old  prophet,  he  breaks  out : 

* '  God  hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit. ' ' 

May  we  be  so  led  by  the  Savior  in  this  investi- 
gation that  the  flood-gates  of  glory  may  be  lifted 
and  our  eyes  opened  to  see  how  glorious  it  is  to  be 
a  Christian  ! 

Several  consequences  follow  from  the  holiness  of 
Christ's  humanity. 

First.  Being  holy,  he  was  not  in  a  state  of  pro- 
bation similar  to  that  of  Adam. 

Second.  Adam  in  innocence,  as  the  result  showed, 
was  liable  to  fall.  No  such  liability  belonged  to 
Christ. 

Third.  Therefore,  the  temptations  of  Jesus  were 
not  tests,  as  if  there  were  a  possibility  of  his  yield- 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  89 

ing,  but  were  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  the 
glory  and  the  holiness  of  his  nature.  The  popular 
thought  is  that  because  Adam  was  tempted  and 
fell,  Christ  must  be  tempted  and  under  the  same 
conditions.  Of  course,  this  is  a  logical  consequence 
of  the  theory  of  a  vicarious  obedience.  It  is,  to 
say  the  least,  a  very  low  view  of  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ. 

The  temptations  of  Jesus  bring  out  the  perfec- 
tions of  his  manhood;  able  to  meet  the  demand  for 
a  victim  "without  blemish."  This  makes  plain 
why  '  '  he  suffered  being  tempted.  '  '  Not  after 
being  tempted,  but  being  tempted. 

To  Adam  in  innocence  there  was  no  suffering; 
but  a  holy  manhood  suffers.  True, 

u  He  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet 
without  sin." 

But  if  the  words  in  italics,  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators, are  left  out,  it  will  be  seen  how  carefully  the 
Bible  guards  this  point.  Sin  as  depravity,  being  a 
tendency  or  bias,  in  the  direction  of  evil,  there  is 
always  the  inner  response  in  our  experience  when 
we  are  tempted.  We  couple  this  response  or  lust 
with  the  temptation  ;  in  fact,  we  never  call  it  temp- 
tation unless  this  inner  response  is  there,  and  are 
apt  to  think  of  Christ  (and  Adam)  as  thus  tempted. 
But  this  is  to  deny  the  moral  glory  of  his  person. 
He  was  tempted  —  that  is,  tried  —  but  it  was  expressly 
'  '  without  sin.  '  '  The  Greek  reads  : 


xa        /jtotor/jra 

.^    {pepeiramenon     de     kata    panta     kath, 
homoioteeta  chooris  hamartias.}  —  Heb.  iv.  15. 


90  ATONEMENT. 

4 '  But  tempted  in  all  things  in  the  same  likeness, 
sin  apart, "  or,  "  apart  from  sin. ' ' 

The  thought  is  that  Christ  did  not  have  this  lust 
or  inner  response.  Hence  he  suffered,  being  tempted, 
and  thus  can  sympathize  with  us  in  our  infirmities. 
His  ' '  suffering  ' '  (like  the  cry  of  agony  in  the  gar- 
den), was  the  result  of  the  weakness  of  humanity. 
By  entering  into  this  he  is  able  to  sympathize,  not 
with  our  sins,  nor  with  our  lust — God  forbid  !  But 
he  is  able  to  "be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our 
infirmities"  Not  moral  infirmities — perish  the 
thought;  but  bodily  infirmities,  or  weaknesses. 
(daOsvsea,  astheneia,  is  translated,  "infirmities," 
( '  weakness, "  "  sickness, ' '  but  is  never  used  in  a 
moral  sense.) 

Fourth.  There  was  no  necessity  of  death,  his 
death  being  purely  voluntary.  As  human,  he  could 
die,  but  that  he  must  die  the  Bible  does  not  teach. 
If  he  only  anticipated  the  natural  course  of  events 
by  his  death  upon  the  cross,  the  force  and  meaning 
of  that  death  is  largely  lost.  Thus  Jesus  says : 

UI  have  power  (ssouaia,  right  or  title)  to  lay 
down  my  life  and  power  to  take  it  again. ' ' 

None  but  Jesus,  and  he  only  as  divine,  could  use 
such  words  as  these.  They  imply  freedom  from  the 
necessity  of  death,  and  a  voluntary  yielding  of 
himself  to  it.  Who  but  Jesus  could  in  death  yield 
up  or  dismiss  his  spirit  ?  Again  in  Philippians  we 
read : 

"And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  hum- 
bled himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even 
the  death  of  the  cross."— Phil.  ii.  8. 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  91 

How  clearly  this  shows  that  he  was  exempt  from 
the  necessity  of  death.  As  a  man  he  became 
"obedient  unto  death."  Obedience  implies  sub- 
mission. No  other  person  but  Christ  ever  thus 
submitted  to  death. 

Death  had  no  claim  upon  him;  and  when,  there- 
fore, he  voluntarily  submitted  to  death,  he  could 
not  be  held  by  it;  but  breaking  the  bands  of  death, 
he  rose  triumphant,  conquering  and  to  conquer, 
bringing  a  "multitude  of  captives  with  him." — 
Eph.  iv. 

'  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life  that  I  might  take  it  again. 

SECTION  II. —  The  Divinity  of  Christ  as  connected 
with  penalty. 

The  divinity  of  Christ  is  plainly  taught  in  the 
Bible  in  such  texts  as  John  i.  i,  already  quoted,  or 
Rom.  ix.  v. 

"Of  whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came, 
who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever." 

This  last  being  one  of  the  strongest  and  most 
explicit  statements  of  divine  supremacy  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament. 

The  divinity  of  Christ  connects  itself  with  atone- 
ment in  two  relations,  as  connected  with  sin  bearing 
and  with  righteousness. 

We  believe  it  to  be  true  that  in  every  age  the  ad- 
vocates of  a  vicarious  atonement  have  emphasized 
the  truth  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  while  the  ten- 
dency of  other  theories  has  been  to  deny  it.  The 
reason  is  obvious.  On  no  other  theory  is  there  a 
rational  necessity  for  it. 


92  ATONEMENT. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  define  the  extent  of  the 
sufferings  that  sin  demands  or  merits  (even  if  pos- 
sible) other  than  to  say  we  find  no  Scripture  author- 
ity for  the  idea  of  ' '  infinite  demerit  "  or  u  infinite 
sin." 

Ours  is  a  material  world.  We  possess  material 
bodies,  and  such  is  the  connection  between  mind 
and  matter  that  we  are  limited  by  our  surroundings 
in  every  way.  God's  moral  government,  so  far  as 
we  are  concerned,  stands  connected  with  this  limited 
sphere.  The  great  moral  law  is  administrative, 
designed  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  men  to  each 
other  and  their  treatment  of  God  on  the  earth. 
Human  laws  are  but  the  expression  of  the  great 
moral  law,  and  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  for 
its  administration.  Human  law  does  not  bind  the 
conscience  only  as  it  is  founded  upon  divine  law, 
for  which  reason  anarchy  is  the  logical  outcome  of 
atheism.  Human  penalties  are  founded  upon  the 
divine,  and  so  far  as  the  divine  are  administrative, 
God  may  be  said  in  some  degree  to  be  punishing 
sin  through  human  administrations.  All  this  has 
respect  to  transgression;  depravity  and  its  conse- 
quences being  out  of  the  sphere  of  the  legal  and 
the  administrative. 

Eternity  will  reveal  a  demerit  in  sin  that  we  see 
nothing  of,  but  our  accountability  can  not  be  meas- 
ured by  it.  Limited  on  every  side  by  our  material 
surroundings,  as  a  logical  consequence  our  sin  and 
our  accountability  must  be  limited  by  it  also.  If 
those  who  sinned  without  law  are  to  be  judged 
without  law,  then  those  who  sin  without  the  spirit- 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  93 

ual  understanding  of  another  world  will  be  judged 
by  the  light  they  have.  Nothing  else  would  be 
just.  The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  our  respon- 
sibility, and  the  penalties  that  sin  will  be  visited 
with,  are  measured  by  any  other  standard  than  those 
God  has  given  to  men. 

u  It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Sodom  and  Go- 
morrah, in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee." — 
Matt  xi.  24. 

This  shows  that  the  degree  of  light  measures  the 
accountability.  If  so,  the  idea  of  infinite  suffering 
can  have  no  place. 

While  it  is  not  a  subject  that  the  Bible  deals 
with,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  sufferings  al- 
ready endured  upon  earth,  may  be  considered  when 
the  judge  shall  be  rendering  to  every  man  according 
to  his  deeds. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  penalties  for  sin  as 
transgression  are  eternal,  for  in  the  governmental 
awards  of  the  judgment  there  will  be  the  "many 
stripes  ' '  and  the  ' '  few. ' '  But  the  consequences  of 
depravity  go  on  for  ever,  because  between  sin  as 
depravity  and  a  holy  God  there  must  be  eternal 
separation.  How  we  can  justly  suffer  forever  for 
what  we  can  not  help  may  seem  hard  to  understand; 
it  is,  however,  a  fact,  that  a  corrupt  nature  entails 
upon  us  suffering  here.  If  we  suffer  here,  this 
suffering  must  remain  forever  unless  the  depravity 
is  removed.  If  depravity  has  been  inherited  with- 
out any  volition  on  our  part,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  provision  has  been  made  for  its  removal  with- 
out our  volition  also.  This  provision  is  as  extensive 


94  ATONEMENT. 

as  the  need,  so  that  none  need  be  lost.  If  any 
suffer  it  is  not  because  they  must,  but  because  of 
their  willful  mad  rejection  of  Christ. 

When  we  pass  into  eternity  we  enter  upon  other 
conditions.  Is  it  not  because  of  this  difference  of 
surroundings,  and,  therefore,  the  difference  in  the 
nature  and  guilt  of  sin,  that  while  for  man  salvation 
is  provided,  for  devils  there  is  none  ?  A  pure  spirit, 
without  the  limitations  of  a  material  body,  may  sin 
so  that  the  demerit  excludes  the  possibility  of  sal- 
vation; otherwise  salvation  would  be  provided  for 
the  angels  who  kept  not  their  first  estate.  This  in- 
dicates why  men  must  be  saved  in  time  and  not  in 
eternity. 

It  is  possible  that  the  sufferings  and  grace  mani- 
fested in  this  world  may  affect  spiritual  intelligences 
in  all  worlds,  and  add  to  their  adoration  of  the 
Godhead.  Christ's  work  may  exert  an  influence 
on  millions  of  worlds.  An  influence  so  vast  that 
God  may  be  glorified  even  in  the  lost. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  position  that  the  pen- 
alties of  transgression  are  not  eternal,  that  Matt. 
xxv.  46  says : 

' '  These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment. '  * 

First.  The  language  does  not  imply  a  positive 
infliction,  but  a  state  or  condition — u  go  away  into." 
This  points  to  its  being  a  consequence,  not  a 
penalty. 

Second.  The  word  translated  "punishment" 
would  better  express  the  idea  of  the  suffering  re- 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  95 

suiting  from  depravity  than  a  penalty.  The  Greek 
word  used  is  K6hJ.m$  (Kolasis).  Liddell  and  Scott 
give  its  meaning  as  : 

"A  pruning;  hence  a  checking,  punishing,  chas- 
tisement, correction,  punishment." 

Archbishop  Trench,  in  his  (  '  Synonyms  of  the 
New  Testament,"  thus  distinguishes  between 
%0/jlmz  (kolasis)  and  Tiptopta  (timooria). 


uln  Ttiuopia,  according  to  its  classical  use,  the 
vindictive  character  of  the  punishment  is  the  prom- 
inent thought;  it  is  the  Latin  'ultio;'  punishment 
as  satisfying  the  inflictor's  sense  of  outraged  justice, 
as  defending  his  own  honor  and  that  of  the  violated 
law  .....  in  jo/ttfffc,  on  the  other  hand,  is  more 
the  notion  of  punishment  as  it  has  reference  to  the 
correction  and  bettering  of  him  that  endures  it." 

The  Archbishop,  however,  shows  that  in  Hellen- 
istic Greek  the  word  acquires  a  severer  sense,  refer- 
ring to  many  authors  in  proof.  After  a  full  exam- 
ination of  the  word  we  find  that  it  expresses  several 
ideas,  (a)  Pruning  or  cutting  off.  (b)  Checking 
or  restraint,  (c)  Suffering.  It  designates,  there- 
fore, the  condition  of  the  lost  as  one  of  everlasting 
suffering,  in  a  condition  of  restraint  as  separated 
from  God.  This  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
depravity  if  we  enter  eternity  unredeemed. 

The  penalties  of  transgression  are  not  fixed  by 
any  legal  enactment,  as  those  of  men  are  by  human 
laws,  or  as  death  was  the  penalty  threatened  in  the 
garden.  The  demerit  of  different  lives  is  not  the 
same;  and  if  God  renders  to  every  man  "  according 
to  his  deeds"  the  demerit  of  each  must  receive  a 


96  ATONEMENT. 

different  award.  If  the  penalty,  like  those  of  hu- 
man laws,  was  legal  and  specific,  then  Christ  would 
have  to  bear  the  very  thing  to  save  us.  For  this 
reason,  he  had  to  die,  because  death  was  the  legal 
penalty  of  the  Mosaic  law.  He  had  to  endure  the 
hidings  of  the  Father's  face,  because  sin  separates; 
and  in  taking  the  sinners'  place  he  had  to  take  this 
place  of  separation.  Beyond  this  the  Bible  is 
silent. 

It  may  be  that  this  was  all  that  Christ  suffered ; 
at  any  rate,  we  have  no  scripture  for  any  thing 
beyond. 

The  following  are  points  indicated  as  to  Christ's 
work  for  us. 

First.  That  the  ground  of  the  substitution  is 
primarily  the  sovereign  will  of  God,  who,  of  his 
own  goodness,  was  pleased  to  plan  and  accept  it. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  law  or  penalty 
that  allows  substitution  as  a  matter  of  right. 

Nothing,  therefore,  but  the  goodness  and  mercy 
of  God  can  be  asserted  as  the  ground  on  which  it 
is  permitted.  The  fact  can  never  be  known  by 
reason,  being  purely  a  matter  of  revelation  and 
faith. 

Second.  The  sufferings  of  Christ  are  of  infinite 
value,  not  because  infinite  suffering  was  demanded 
as  satisfaction,  but  of  pure  necessity,  because  of  the 
divinity  of  his  Person. 

As  no  creature  can  make  restitution,  because 
none  can  do  more  than  fulfill  the  end  of  their 
being,  none  but  God  himself  could  make  satisfac- 
tion. But  Christ,  as  divine,  could  not  have  suffered 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  97 

without  those  sufferings  having  an  infinite  value, 
and  hence,  instead  of  relaxation — God  being  pleased 
to  accept  a  part  for  the  whole — they  are  in  reality 
the  substitution  of  that  which  has  infinite  value  in 
the  place  of  finite  suffering.  It  is  because  of  this 
infinite  value,  so  far  beyond  the  mere  commercial 
idea  of  an  exact  equivalent,  that  God's  mercy  goes 
out  to  all,  and  untold  blessings  come  upon  the  un- 
saved. 

Third.  God  having  of  his  own  sovereign  will 
given  Christ  to  be  our  substitute,  his  death  necessa- 
rily involved  no  criminality. 

Fourth.  The  ground  in  justice  of  this  substitu- 
tion is  the  vital  union  of  the  believers  and  Christ. 
This  union  is  such  that  as  one  he  can  die  for  us,  the 
sufferings  being  his  and  the  criminality  ours.  This 
will  be  discussed  at  length  in  our  next  chapter. 

Fifth.  An  unconditional  substitution  is  impos- 
sible. 

(a)  As  God  must  accept  it  and  Christ  be  willing 
to  suffer,  the  sinner  must  accept  the  Savior.     All 
must  be  willing.     The  sinner  has  the  right,  if  he  so 
desires,  to  bear  the  penalty  of  his  own  sin. 

(b)  The  nature  of  the  vital  union  on  which  sub- 
stitution rests,  is  such,  that  it  can  only  be  estab- 
lished by  faith. 

(c)  An   unconditional   substitution   implies   that 
God  does  not  require  sinners  to  be  reconciled  to  him. 

(d)  It  would  ignore  the  freedom  of  the  will. 

SECTION  III. — Chrises  Divinity   as    Connected 
with  Righteousness. 
8 


98  ATONEMENT. 

The  old  idea  that  Christ's  law  keeping  is  imputed 
to  us  for  righteousness,  giving  us  a  title  to  heaven 
is  part  of  the  old  Calvinistic  theory  of  substitution, 
the  logical  counterpart  of  the  dogma  of  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  sin.  Rejecting  the  one,  we  con- 
sistently reject  the  other,  holding  instead  what  is 
the  logical  counterpart  of  the  Natural  Headship  of 
Adam.  If  Adam  was  the  Federal  Head,  so  was 
Christ;  and  either  a  limited  atonement  or  Univer- 
salism  would  be  true.  If  Adam  is  the  Natural 
Head  of  the  race,  so  that  by  vital  union  with  him 
we  become  depraved,  then  Christ  is  the  Natural 
Head  of  the  new  creation,  and  we  are  redeemed 
.from  sin  in  him. 

The  chief  text  relied  upon  by  the  advocates  of 
.the  imputation  of  Christ's  law  keeping  is : 

* '  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us  .... 
that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
him." — 2  Cor.  v.  21. 

If,  however,  the  Calvinistic  theory  be  true,  this 
should  be  ' '  that  we  might  be  made  righteous  by  his 
law  keeping."  But  this  is  just  what  Paul  does  not 
say,  but  "the  righteousness  of  God  in  him." 

Neither  is  it  the  same  word  that  is  translated 
' '  made ' '  in  the  two  clauses — a  significant  fact  in  a 
true  exposition.  "He  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 
(ajuaprtav  knotr/aw,  hamartian  epoieesen)  for  us,  that 
we  might  become  (jcvto^Oa^  ginoomethd]  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him." 

We  find  fault  with  the  theory  of  a  vicarious  obe- 
dience, or  law  keeping,  for  many  reasons. 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  99 

(a)  It   involves   a  double  substitution.     This  is 
inevitable.     But  a  double  substitution  either  under- 
values the  suffering  or  the  obedience  of  Christ. 

(b)  If  Christ  was  "made  under  the  law,"  then  he 
as  man  was  required   to  keep   it.     It    could    not, 
therefore  be  a  vicarious  obedience,  because  rendered 
for  himself.    -A  vicarious  law  keeping  implies  that 
Christ  was  not  obligated  to  keep  the  law  for  him- 
self.    His  death  not  being  obligatory,  could  be  suf- 
fered or  endured  for  others;  this  can  not  be  said  of 
his  law  keeping. 

(c)  If  Christ  obeyed  the  law  for  us,  then,  logic- 
ally, that  releases  us  from  obligation  to  keep  it  our- 
selves, which  is  Antinomianism. 

(d)  If  Christ's  law  keeping  is  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness,  then  we  are  justified  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law — that  is,  by  doing  what  the  law  requires. 
The  essence  of  a  vicarious  obedience  is  that  we  are 
dealt  with  as  having  done  what  the  substitute  has 
done.     If,   then,   Christ's    law  keeping  is  reckoned 
to  us  as  having  been  done  by  us,  and  we  are  thus 
justified,  we  are  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law. 
The  theory  is  in  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  Paul. 

If  we  are  saved  by  the  law  keeping  of  Christ,  it 
can  never  be  said  that  we — 

"Are  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the 
law." 

The  whole  theory  is  necessitated  by  the  mistaken 
thought  that  heaven  was  ever  promised  to  any  one 
on  the  ground  of  obedience. 

Men  are  always  trying  to  climb  up  into  heaven 
by  the  ladder  of  their  own  works;  and  in  the  effort 


TOO  ATONEMENT. 

to  lay  a  foundation  for  this,  have  found  in  the 
promise  of  life  conditioned  upon  obedience,  a  prom- 
ise of  heaven.  As  we  have  already  shown,  this  is 
not  Bible  teaching.  We  re-affirm  it.  Never  in  any 
age,  to  any  people,  was  heaven  ever  promised  as 
the  reward  of  obedience.  Even  its  possibility  is 
never  asserted.  If  our  law  keeping  was  as  perfect 
as  that  of  Christ's,  it  would  create  no  title  to 
heaven.  No  human  merit  could  entitle  to  so  great 
a  blessing. 

That  Christ  as  born  of  a  woman,  "born  under 
law,"  kept  it  in  every  jot  and  tittle,  is  certainly 
true;  but  this  was  to  bring  out  the  glory  and  per- 
fection of  his  manhood  as  "without  blemish." 
The  law  was  given  to  manifest  the  serpent's  power. 
It  was  a  picture  in  the  leprous  hand  of  Moses  of 
what  sin  is,  and  by  giving  a  knowledge  of  sin  it 
showed  all  the  world  guilty  before  God.  But  in 
Christ,  that  which  manifested  sin  in  others,  but 
served  to  bring  out  the  sinlessness  and  perfection  of 
his  manhood.  This  was  far  different  from  a  vica- 
rious law  keeping.  The  Bible  teaches: 

"As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be 
made  righteous." — Rom.  v.  19. 

This  shows  the  bearing  of  Christ's  "obedience  " 
on  the  matter  of  salvation,  but  his  "obedience" 
was  far  more  than  law  keeping.  Thus  he  says: 

"  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me."  —John 
vi.  38. 


PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  101 

c '  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
and  to  finish  his  work." — John  iv.  34. 

u  Nevertheless  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt." — 
Matt.  xxvi.  39. 

"  It  is  finished." — John  xix.  30. 

What  do  these — and  numerous  similar  texts — 
teach  as  to  the  obedience  of  Christ  ?  Why,  that  it 
went  far  beyond  mere  law  keeping.  It  was  an 
obedience  that  led  him  to  ' '  come  down  from 
heaven,"  to  be  "obedient  unto  death,"  obedient, 
not  to  the  law,  but  to  the  Father  whose  will  it  was 
and  whose  will  he  came  to  do.  It  was  more  than 
legal  righteousness,  more  than  human — it  was 
divine.  Linking  itself  with  his  work  as  the  Eter- 
nal Son,  an  inseparable  part  of  his  one  Personality, 
his  righteousness  was  One,  it  was  the  Righteous- 
ness of  God,  a  heavenly  righteousness  of  infinite 
value. 

Hence,  it  was  the  "gift  by  grace,"  "the  abun- 
dance of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness." 

It  was  because  Christ  was  divine  that  this  right- 
eousness has  its  value,  and  because  of  this  value 
poor  sinners  whose  title  to  an  earthly  Eden  has  been 
forfeited  receive  a  title  to  the  paradise  of  God. 

Coining  from  heaven,  the  Lord  Jesus  by  taking 
us  into  union  with  himself,  raises  us  to  heaven, 
where  man  could  never  have  entered  on  any  other 
ground. 

' '  The  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given 
them." — John  xvii.  22. 

4 '  Father,  /  will  that  they  also  whom  thou  hast 
gi\>en  me  be  with  me  where  I  am." — John  xvii.  24. 


io2  ATONEMENT. 

"  It  became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by 
whom  are  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many  sons 
into  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  suffering." — Heb.  ii.  10. 

While,  therefore,  Christ's  righteousness  is  im- 
puted to  us — that  is,  reckoned  or  counted  ours — 
and  this  imputed  righteousness  gives  us  standing 
before  God,  we  do  not  believe  it  to  be  his  law  keep- 
ing, nor  a  vicarious  obedience.  Union  with  Christ 
makes  us  one  in  him,  and  on  the  ground  of  this 
oneness  his  righteousness  becomes  ours,  introduc- 
ing us  into  all  the  glory  that  such  a  righteousness 
brings. 

First.  Not  being  a  legal  righteousness,  it  follows 
that  we  are  not  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
neither  by  a  personal  nor  a  vicarious  law  keeping. 

Second.  It  destroys  forever  the  idea  of  salvation 
by  works  and  shuts  us  up  to  grace. 

Third.  It  shows  the  greatness  of  God's  thought 
for  the  race,  and  makes  the  Old  Testament  a  prep- 
aration for  the  New — not  the -New  a  restoration  of 
the  Old. 

Fourth.  It  brings  out  the  force  of  the  truth  that 
the  second  man  was  ' '  the  Lord  from  heaven. ' ' 
Resurrection  unto  life,  our  title  to  heaven,  Sonship, 
all  gather  around  this  truth,  being  made  possible 
only  by  union  with  ' '  the  Lord  from  heaven. ' ' 

Fifth.  It  shows  the  ground  upon  which  we  be- 
come heirs,  and  indicates  the  nature  of  the  inherit- 
ance. In  contrast  to  the  earthly  calling,  it  is  ours 
to  be  made  ' '  partakers  ' '  of  the  heavenly. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   BAPTISM   OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT. 

The  controversy  as  to  water  baptism,  especially 
as  to  the  "mode,"  has  done  much  to  obscure  the 
truth  of  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus,  when- 
ever baptism  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  men  think 
of  the  ordinance  and  of  the  mode. 

Without  entering  into  the  controversy  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptidzo,  other  than  may  be 
necessary  to  make  plain  the  truth  of  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  there  is  a  medium  ground  recognized  by 
both  sides  in  the  controversy. 

The  two  ablest  writers  on  the  classic  meaning 
of  the  word,  are,  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Dale,  from  the 
Pedo-Baptist,  and  Dr.  Conant,  from  the  Baptist 
stand-point.  Perhaps  no  others  have  made  a  more 
exhaustive,  thorough  study  of  the  word — years 
being  spent  in  the  examination  and  the  ripest 
scholarship  being  brought  to  the  task.  Giving  a 
formal  definition  of  the  word,  Dr.  Conant  says : 

'The  word  Baptizein,  during  the  whole  exist* 
ence  of  the  Greek  as  a  spoken  language,  had  a  per- 
fectly defined  and  unvarying  import.  In  its  literal 
use  it  meant,  as  has  been  shown,  to  put  into  or 
under  a  liquid,  or  other  penetrable  substance,  gen- 
erally water,  so  that  the  object  was  wholly  covered 
by  the  inclosing  element.  By  analogy  it  expresses 


104  ATONEMENT. 

the  coming  into  a  new  state  of  life  or  experience, 
in  which  one  was,  as  it  were,  inclosed  and  swal- 
lowed up,  so  that,  temporarily  or  permanently,  he 
belonged  wholly  to  it." 

Dr.  Dale,  in  answer  to  the  question,  "What  is 
classic  Baptism  ?  "  says: 

"  I  would  place  this  answer :  " 

"  Whatever  is  capable  of  thoroughly  changing 
the  character,  state,  or  condition  of  any  object,  is 
capable  of  baptising  that  object ;  and  by  such 
change  of  state,  or  condition,  does,  in  fact,  bap- 
tise it." 

Between  the  last  half  of  Conant  and  this,  there 
is  substantial  agreement;  and  here,  where  they 
both  agree,  we  have  the  true  meaning  of  the  word. 
This  is  in  harmony  with  its  classic  use.  If  a  ship 
was  sunk,  it  was  baptized;  if  a  man  was  drowned, 
he  was  baptized ;  if  a  man  was  drunk,  he  was  bap- 
tized by  the  wine.  Men  were  baptized  by  sleep,  by 
ignorance,  by  debt.  Hermerius,  speaking  of  The- 
mistocles,  says : 

uHe  was  great  at  Salamis;  for  there,  fighting, 
he  baptized  all  Asia." 

SECTION  I.  —  What  is  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  f 

In  our  examination  we  turn,  first,  to  the  Gospels. 
Here  we  find  only  the  simple  statement  that  Christ 
would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  During 
Christ's  life  it  was  something  still  future,  and  yet 
miraculous  gifts  and  powers  were  possessed  by  the 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  105 

apostles.  This  would  indicate  that  the  baptism 
and  the  uGift"  of  the  Spirit — the  miraculous  pow- 
ers— were  separate  and  distinct. 

Next  we  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  Acts.  Here 
the  Lord  Jesus,  just  before  his  ascension,  tells  his 
disciples  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem — 

"  But  to  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me.  For  John 
truly  baptised  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 

And  in  answer  to  the  question: 

"Wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  king- 
dom ?  "  says: 

"  But  ye  shall  receive  power  after  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  come  upon  you." 

From  these  words,  together  with  the  record  in 
the  next  chapter,  some  have  held  that  the  baptism 
was  the  pouring  out.  Others  make  it  the  receiving 
power,  making  the  baptism  to  be  the  miraculous 
powers  and  gifts.  As  we  have  no  miraculous  gifts 
now,  it  is  held  that  we  have  no  baptism.  This 
confounds  the  baptism  and  the  gift.  Both  views 
are  extreme.  The  baptism  was  not  the  pouring 
out,  but  the  result  of  it.  It  was  not  the  power, 
but  the  cause  of  that  power.  Just  here  we  appeal 
to  the  word  used. 

;<  By  analogy  it  expressed  the  coming  into  a  new 
state  of  life,  or  experience." — Dr.  Conant. 

What  is  this  change  of  state,  of  life,  or  experi- 
ence, brought  about  by  means  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 


io6  ATONEMENT. 

Out  of  darkness  into  light.  Out  of  the  kingdom 
of  Satan  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Son.  This 
change  of  state  or  condition,  is  brought  about  by 
'means  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  hence,  it  is  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit. 

The  Greek  preposition  ev  (en),  when  used  as  the 
dative  of  instrumentality,  is  expressed  in  English 
by  "with,"  uby,"  and  "  by  means  of."  We  use 
this  last,  as  being  more  in  harmony  with  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  the  second  chapter  of  Acts,  in  the  account  of 
what  took  place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we  read : 

' '  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come, 
they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place. 

And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as 
of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting. 

And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them. 

And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance." — Acts  ii.  1-4. 

The  order  of  events  as  here  given  are : 

(a)  The  sound  as  of  a  rushing  wind  is  heard. 

(V)  The  sound  filled  the  house. 

(c)  Cloven  tongues  are  seen. 

(d)  They  are  all  filled  with  the  Spirit. 

(e)  They  spake  with  tongues. 

Where  shall  we  look  for  the  baptism  ?  Clearly  in 
the  fourth  item.  "  They  were  all  filled  with  the 
Spirit, ' '  and  thus  by  means  of  the  Spirit  were  bap- 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  107 

tized.     By  it  they  were  brought  into  a  new  state,  a 
new  relation  to  Christ,  and  to  each  other. 

They  were  "filled  with  the  Spirit,"  and  as  there 
is  bnt  one  Spirit,  and  all  were  filled  by  him,  as  he 
thus  dwelt  in  each  and  in  Christ,  they  were  by  this 
one  Spirit  united  to  each  other,  and  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Thus  the  body  was  formed. 

' '  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body."  —i  Cor.  xii.  12. 

The  New  Testament  teaches  that  there  is  a  union 
between  Christ  and  his  people,  that  far  exceeds  all 
analogy.  He  is  the  Bridegroom,  his  people  the 
Bride.  He  is  the  Foundation,  the  Chief  Corner- 
stone, and  the  Head-stone  of  the  corner;  believers 
are  the  living  stones  in  this  spiritual  temple.  He  is 
the  Vine,  they  are  the  branches.  He  is  the  Head, 
they  the  members  of  the  body.  All  these  but  illus- 
trate from  various  stand-points  the  truth  of  the 
believer's  union  with  his  Lord.  The  great  bond  of 
union,  the  link  that  binds  all  together,  is  the  in- 
dwelling Spirit. 

This  is  the  most  important  truth  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament and  the  key  to  the  atonement.  This  bap- 
tism has  the  same  relation  to  the  medium  theology 
as  God's  sovereignty  has  to  Calvinism  or  the  free- 
dom of  the  will  to  Arminianism.  It  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  system. 

How  fully  this  baptism  identifies  us  with  Christ ! 
By  this  precious  baptism  Christ  and  his  people  are 
so  united  that  he  can  say  to  a  Saul  on  his  way  to 
Damascus  : 


io8  ATONEMENT. 

u  Why  persecutes!  thou  me?" — Acts  ix.  4. 
And  at  the  gathering  of  the  nations  before  his 
glory  throne : 

u  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least 
of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me" 
Matt.  xxv.  40. 

Christ  and  his  people  are  so  one,  that  his  death 
is  theirs,  his  burial,  resurrection,  and  ascension, 
theirs. 

"  I  was  (so  the  Greek)  crucified  with  Christ,  never- 
theless I  live;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." 
Gal.  ii.  20. 

' '  Ye  are  dead  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in 
God."— Col.  iii.  3. 

The  use  of  the  word  "substitute  "  when  speaking 
of  the  work  of  Christ,  hardly  expresses  the  full 
Bible  idea.  While  it  is  the  best  word  we  can  use, 
Christ's  work  goes  beyond  simple  substitution. 
Still  no  other  word  applies  as  well.  ' '  Benefaction  ' ' 
has  been  suggested,  but  it  applies  to  every  theory 
and  every  blessing.  It  is  in  no  sense  distinctive. 
It  expresses  what  it  is,  but  not  how  it  is.  Hence, 
all  of  every  school,  believe  that  Christ's  work  is  a 
benefaction.  If  we  use  the  word  substitution  in 
the  sense  of  "in  the  place  of,"  and  confine  it  to  this 
meaning,  it,  better  than  any  other  word,  expresses 
what  Christ  did  by  his  sufferings.  But  we  must 
remember  the  truth  of  the  union  with  Christ  which 
places  his  substitution  upon  different  ground  than 
that  of  one  person  dying  in  the  place  of  another, 
while  not  destroying  that  idea. 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  109 

The  Bible  everywhere  proclaims  the  unity  be- 
tween Christ  and  his  people  to  be  such,  that  it  lays 
a  foundation  for  more  than  substitution  does.  Sub- 
stitution alone  would  bring  no  fitness  for  heaven; 
union  with  Christ  does. 

Here  is  an  unconverted  man.  Certainly  he  is 
not  "in  Christ,"  nor  is  Christ  "in  him." 

' '  If  any  man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  he  is 
none  of  his." — Rom.  viii.  9. 

The  Holy  Spirit  so  applies  the  word  that  the  man 
is  convicted  of  sin.  Still  the  Holy  Spirit  is  ex- 
ternal to  him  and  he  is  told  not  to  "resist  the 
Spirit."  Moved  by  his  sense  of  need,  he  comes  to 
Christ,  receives  him  as  his  Savior,  believes  on  him. 
No  sooner  does  he  believe  than  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
given  to  him  as  the  "earnest"  of  the  inheritance. 

' '  In  whom  having  also  believed  ye  were  sealed 
with  the  Holy  Spirit." 

His  body  thus  becomes  the  "temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Henceforth  "  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in 
him."  This  indwelling  spirit,  as  it  dwells  also  in 
Christ,  links  him  to  Christ,  and  so  by  means  of  one 
spirit  he  is  "baptized  into  Christ." 

SECTION  II.  —  What  are  the  results  of  the  Spirit 
Baptism? 

First.   It  lays  a  foundation  for  the  atonement. 

The  difficulties  that  have  been  urged  against  a 
vicarious  atonement  may  be  classed  under  two 
heads. 

i.  Those  that  come  from  the  effort  to  make  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  an  "exact  equivalent  "  for  those 


no  ATONEMENT. 

of  the  saved.  This  Calvinistic  position  logically 
leads  to  one  of  three  conclusions.  That  he  suffered 
the  exact  equivalent  for  those  of  the  saved — a  lim- 
ited atonement.  That  he  suffered  an  exact  equiva- 
lent for  those  of  all  men.  This  means  either  that 
all  men  are  saved — Universalism — or  that  Christ  suf- 
fered the  penalty  for  the  lost — a  double  bearing  of 
the  penalty. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  must  necessarily  be  of 
infinite  value  from  the  divinity  of  his  person. 
Man's  sin  being  finite,  it  is  the  substitution  of  that 
which  has  infinite  value  for  that  which  is  finite. 
(See  this  fully  discussed  in  chapter  on  uDay  of 
Atonement.") 

2.  Those  that  grow  out  of  the  connection  between 
penalty  and  criminality.  The  great  problem  of 
unbelief  has  always  been,  how  an  innocent  man 
can  suffer  for  the  guilty.  It  has  been  held  that  it 
can  not  be  done  justly  without  a  transfer  of  the 
criminality;  and  this  transfer  being  impossible, 
many  have  been  led  to  reject  substitution.  All  be- 
lieve that  if  substitution  requires  a  transfer  of  crim- 
inality it  must  be  rejected.  We  believe  that  except 
when  the  penalty  is  of  the  nature  of  a  fine,  such 
transfer  of  criminality  would  be  demanded  in  a 
normal  case  of  substitution.  As  an  example,  if  a 
man  commits  a  murder,  the  demand  of  the  law  is 
not  for  death,  but  the  death  of  the  murderer.  There- 
fore, the  penalty  could  never  be  borne  by  a  perfectly 
innocent  man,  however  willing  he  might  be.  His 
death  would  in  no  sense  satisfy  the  demand  of  the 
law,  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  crim- 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  in 

inality.  It  would  never  be  approved  by  the  moral 
sense  of  mankind.  Criminality  being  untransfer- 
able, substitution  is  impossible  in  such  cases. 

It  is  here  that  the  truth  of  the  Spirit  baptism 
meets  us,  placing  the  work  of  Christ  on  such 
grounds,  and  bringing  in  such  conditions,  that  it 
stands  outside  of  our  experiences  and  distinct  from 
every  thing  else. 

The  Spirit  baptism  lays  a  foundation  in  justice 
for  a  vicarious  atonement. 

The  union  of  the  humanity  and  divinity  of  Christ 
is  such  that  he  is  one  person,  but  at  the  same  time 
his  true  humanity  and  divinity  are  not  impaired. 
So  the  union  of  Christ  and  his  people  is  such  that 
on  the  ground  of  it,  we  are  one,  and  yet  our  sep- 
arate identity  is  not  destroyed.  This  union  is  simi- 
lar to  that  between  the  Father  and  the  Son;  for 
Christ  prays : 

'That  they  may  be  one  even  as  we  are  one." — 
John  xvii.  22. 

This  oneness  does  not  destroy  identity,  so  that 
our  sin  does  not  become  Christ's.  Yet  the  unity  is 
so  real,  that  while  the  criminality  is  ours  and  the 
sufferings  are  his,  these  sufferings  are  in  our  room 
or  place.  The  separate  identity  separates  the  crim- 
inality from  Christ,  the  mystic  union  makes  the 
value  of  his  sufferings  ours.  This  is  what  we  mean 
by  substitution. 

Then  no  benefit  can  come  to  any  man  until  he 
accepts  the  Savior.  But  when  he  believes,  being 
"  baptized  into  Christ,"  he  is  "baptized  into  his 
death." 


ii2  ATONEMENT. 

Second.   It  gives  us  a  perfect  righteousness. 

When  a  man  has  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
his  standing  is  not  that  of  an  innocent  man  in  the 
community.  The  guilt  of  his  crime,  although  it 
has  been  expiated,  still  clings  to  the  man's  charac- 
ter and  affects  his  standing.  So  with  the  sinner. 
The  death  of  Christ  as  expiating  his  offense  does 
not  give  him  standing.  Hence,  righteousness  is 
needed.  Righteousness  delivers  us  from  the  guilt, 
and  gives  us  a  standing  as  ' '  complete  in  him. ' '  This 
is  "justification  of  life" — that  is,  a  justification  be- 
longing to  the  life  that  is  given.  What  a  standing 
it  bestows  !  In  Christ,  we  stand  before  God  in  the 
value  of  his  righteousness,  the  measure  of  his  love 
to  us  being  his  love  to  Christ. 

u  And  hast  loved  them,  as  thou  hast  loved  me." 
— John  vii.  23. 

This  righteousness  is  ours  solely  on  the  ground 
of  union  with  Christ.  Being  "in  him,"  his  right- 
eousness becomes  ours,  but  as  our  separate  identity 
remains,  it  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  and  being 
counted  as  ours,  our  standing  is  perfect  even  though 
there  be  sin  in  our  actual  experience.  Yet  the 
union  being  real  it  is  more  than  imputation,  the 
imparted  life  making  us  ' '  partakers  of  the  divine 
nature,'4  so  that  this  righteousness  works  itself  out 
in  our  experience  until  it  will  be  ours  in  character 
as  well  as  in  standing;  an  imparted  as  well  as  an 
imputed  righteousness. 

( '  But  of  him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God 
is  made  unto  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctifica- 
tion,  and  redemption." — i  Cor.  i.  30. 


SPIRIT  BAPTISM.  113 

"And  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which 
is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God  by  faith." — Phil.  iii.  9. 

Third.  It  is  the  ground  of  election. 

An  unconditional  individual  election  to  eternal 
life  is  not  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  Election  is 
taught,  but  always  in  Christ. 

' '  According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy 
and  without  blame  before  him  in  love." — Bph.  i.  4. 

No  unconverted  person  is  in  Christ;  then  no  un- 
converted person  is  one  of  the  elect.  Election  out 
of  Christ  is  unknown  to  the  Bible.  Without  the 
Spirit  a  man  is  u  none  of  his"  But  when  by  the 
one  Spirit  we  are  baptized  into  Christ,  this  union 
with  Christ  takes  us  u  out  of  the  world  "  and  places 
us  among  the  "  elect." 

Over  the  door  of  entrance  God  has  written  : 

* '  Whosoever  will  may  come. ' ' 

But  when  we  have  entered  and  looked  up  we 
read  : 

"Chosen  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world." 

Fourth.  It  is  the  ground  of  deliverance  from 
sin. 

This  will  be  considered  fully  in  the  chapter  on 
"Redemption,"  and  also  in  Part  III.,  " The  Appli- 
cation of  the  Atonement." 

Fifth.   It  is  the  ground  of  the  believer's  security. 
9 


ii4  ATONEMENT. 

(a)  It  is  involved  in  election  which  secures  cer- 
tainty. 

(b)  The  life  that  is  imparted  is  Christ's.     As  we 
are  linked  to  him  in  resurrection,  not  incarnation, 
it  is  his  resurrection  life  we  receive,  which  never 
ends;  hence  it  is  "eternal  life"  the  believer  has  as 
a  present  possession. 

(c)  Union  being  by  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit's  work  in 
us,   and    Christ's    intercession  for  us   combine   to 
secure  our  safety. 

Sixth.   It  is  the  ground  of  Christian  unity. 

Oil  being  the  well-known  symbol  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  we  have  a  beautiful  type  of  the  "unity  of 
the  Spirit  "in  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-third 
Psalm. 

"Behold  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for 

'brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity.     It  is  like  the 

precious  ointment  upon  the  head,  that  ran  down 

upon   the   beard,   even  Aaron's   beard,    that   went 

down  to  the  skirts  of  his  garment. ' ' 

As  the  life  is  the  unity  of  the  body,  the  spirit  is 
the  unity  of  the  mystic  body;  and  there  being  but 
one  spirit,  all  Christians  are  one. 

This  precious  baptism — Christian  baptism — the 
only  one  that  saves,  is  the  foundation  of  the  Medi- 
um Theology;  the  key  to  the  great  truth  of  the 
atonement. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   DAY   OF   ATONEMENT. 

The  Day  of  Atonement  is  one  of  the  most  com- 
plete typical  representations  of  Christ's  work  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible.  While  all  types  are  but  im- 
perfect pictures,  this  brings  out  features  of  Christ's 
work  not  so  fully  brought  out  elsewhere.  Thus 
the  two  goats,  one  to  die,  the  other  to  bear  sin,  are 
distinctive. 

They  represent  a  difference  in  the  work  of  Christ, 
because  both  typify  him.  What  is  this  ?  The  goat 
that  is  slain  sets  forth  Christ  as  dying.  The  other 
goat  having  sins  transferred  to  him — "he  shall  bear 
upon  him  all  their  iniquities" — is  a  type  of  Christ 
as  sin  bearer..  Each  is  separate  from  the  other, 
bringing  out  the  Bible  distinction  between  propiti- 
ation and  substitution. 

One  cause  of  the  controversy  between  Calvinists 
and  Arminians  is  a  failure  to  make  this  discrimin- 
ation. Propitiation  has  an  aspect  to  all  men ;  sub- 
stitution is  always  limited. 

The  Calvinist,  seeing  that  substitution  is  limited, 
and  recognizing  that  if  Christ  ubore  our  sins,"  we 
are  effectually  and  certainly  saved,  and  not  distin- 
guishing between  substitution  and  propitiation, 
makes  propitiation  limited  also.  This  leads  to  the 


n6  ATONEMENT. 

limited  atonement  with  its  fatalism,  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, as  strictly  fate  ignores  God,  its  doctrine  of 
u  necessity." 

The  Arminian  recognizes  that  propitiation  is  for 
all  men;  and  not  discriminating  between  propitia- 
tion and  substitution,  makes  substitution  universal 
also.  This  leads  him,  in  order  to  avoid  Universal- 
ism,  to  give  a  lower  value  to  Christ's  work  for  his 
people,  bringing  in  other  conditions  of  salvation, 
thus  exalting  man  and  degrading  the  work  of 
Christ. 

Both  are  logical  consequences  of  a  failure  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  two  goats,  but  in  opposite 
directions.  We  have  thus  two  great  systems,  each 
with  elements  of  strength  from  the  truth  they 
possess,  but  with  elements  of  weakness,  because 
only  a  part  of  the  truth. 

Calvinism  is  strong  as  to  substitution,  decided  as 
to  the  value  of  Christ's  work  for  the  believer,  giv- 
ing the  full  glory  of  our  salvation  to  him.  It  builds 
up  a  sturdy  Christian  character,  and  has  left  the 
deepest  impress  upon  the  hymns  of  Christendom. 
Those  hymns  that  have  found  their  way  into  every 
land,  and  that  live  in  the  worship  of  Christendom, 
are  those  that  tell  of  salvatign  all  of  grace,  and  of 
the  benefits  of  Christ's  work  for  his  people. 

' '  Grace,  '  t  is  a  charming  sound. ' ' 
"Just  as  I  am,  without  one  plea." 
u  How  firm  a  foundation." 

These  are  the  hymns  that  fill  the  hearts  of  God's 
people  with  love  and  devotion  as  they  sing. 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  117 

No  hymn  that  embodies  the  lower  Arminian  idea 
of  apostasy  has  ever  crept  into  the  great  heart  of 
Christendom. 

How  strong  and  massive  has  been  the  Christian 
thought  and  literature  Calvinism  has  given  to  the 
world.  Grappling  with  the  deeper  questions  of 
theology,  always  zealous  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
standing  everywhere  the  earnest  defender  of  the 
faith  against  all  comers,  the  literature  of  our  com- 
mon Christianity  has  largely  sprung  into  being 
through  >its  instrumentality.  It  has  been  the  bul- 
wark of  the  truth.  What  great  names  shine,  as 
stars  in  its  pathway,  like  those  of  Augustine  and 
Anselm. 

How  grand  the  history  it  has  given  to  the  world. 
Rivaling  in  its  spirit  of  heroism  the  ancient  Spar- 
tans and  Persians,  it  leaves  a  heritage  of  glory  to 
all  ages.  The  heroic  struggles  in  the  Netherlands, 
the  victories  of  the  famous  * '  Ironsides, ' '  the  pa- 
thetic story  of  the  Covenanters  speak  its  spirit  and 
record  its  power. 

Strong  as  to  substitution,  when  it  comes  to  pro- 
pitiation, Calvinism  loses  its  strength,  and  with 
halting  step  and  stammering  voice  presents  Christ 
to  a  dying  world.  It  deadens  the  sense  of  respon- 
sibility and  lulls  to  sleep  those  who  should  be 
aroused. 

Arminianism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  strong  as  to 
propitiation.     It  inflames  with  zeal  the  followers  of 
Christ,  leading  them  to  earnest,  aggressive  work  in 
winning  souls.    Under  the  influence  of  its  teaching, 
which  is  the  spirit  of  all  mission  life,  the  Christian 


n8  ATONEMENT. 

army  is  marching  on  to  conquer  the  world  for  Christ. 
The  rugged  pioneers  of  the  great  Christian  army, 
making  their  way  into  the  forests  and  waste  places 
of  the  earth,  crossing  the  seas  to  heathen  lands  as 
the  great  advance  guard  of  civilization,  are  but  car- 
rying out  the  great  principle  of  propitiation  for  all. 

One  of  the  grandest  histories  of  modern  days  is 
that  of  the  Methodist  church.  The  struggles  and 
sacrifices,  the  toil,  the  flaming  zeal  of  its  preachers 
may  challenge  the  admiration  of  the  world.  Pro- 
pitiation for  all  men,  salvation  offered  to  all,  and 
all  men  responsible  for  their  acceptance  or  rejection 
of  it,  this  is  the  mainspring  of  the  energy  of  the 
great  Christian  host. 

Here,  again,  we  may  notice  that  the  hymns  that 
breathe  this  spirit  live. 

u  From  Greenland's  icy  mountains  "  is  sung  in 
the  missionary  meetings  of  all  Christendom.  No 
hymn  has  taken  hold  of  the  heart  of  the  church 
that  embodies  the  idea  of  a  limited  atonement. 

While  strong  as  to  propitiation,  Arminianism  is 
vacillating  as  to  substitution,  giving  an  uncertain 
value  to  Christ's  work  for  his  people,  making  that 
value  to  depend  upon  the  believer's  faithfulness, 
rather  than  upon  what  Christ  has  done,  thus  leav- 
ing Christians  without  the  fullness  and  blessing  of 
the  Christian  standing.  It  keeps  men  in  the  val- 
leys, wandering  in  the  fog  of  uncertainty  and  doubt, 
when  they  might  be  on  the  mountain  in  the  grand 
sunshine  of  perfect  assurance. 

Both  are  extremes.  Truth  is  midway  between. 
Propitiation  for  all  men,  in  the  fullest  Arminian 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  119 

sense,  so  that  a  full  salvation  may  be  preached  unto 
all,  but  substitution  limited  and  meaning  all  that 
the  Calvinist  affirms.  This  is  shown  by  the  two 
goats  on  the  day  of  atonement. 

A  Calvinist  can  not  logically  believe  in  a  vicari- 
ous atonement,  or  propitiation  for  all  men.  It  is 
fundamental  to  Calvinism  that  Christ's  sufferings 
were  an  exact  equivalent  for  those  of  the  saved. 
Then  of  course  Christ  could  have  died  for  none  but 
the  saved,  or  you  have  the  contradiction  that  he 
paid  the  debt,  and  at  the  same  time  did  not  pay  it. 
Calvinism  in  every  fiber  of  it  is  logically  consistent 
wit  h  itself,  and  "necessitates"  the  dogma  of  a  lim- 
ited atonement.  But  this  logical  consistency  brings 
it  into  conflict  with  the  plainest  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  and  taxes  to  the  utmost  the  ingenuity  of  its 
advocates  in  explaining  away  the  force  of  many 
texts. 

Arminianism,  embracing  in  some  form  the  idea 
of  "relaxation,"  can  never  give  a  definite  value  to 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  his  people;  so  that  the 
exact  benefit  of  Christ's  work  to  his  people,  so  far 
as  the  standing  and  security  of  the  Christian  are 
concerned,  is  shrouded  in  gloom. 

The  Medium  Theology,  recognizing  propitiation 
for  all  men,  but  giving  to  substitution  its  full  value, 
has  the  strength  without  the  weakness  of  both  great 
systems.  It  is  the  theology  of  the  future.  The 
drift  is  already  in  that  direction.  A  limited  atone- 
ment and  the  dogma  of  apostasy  are  being  preached 
less  and  less.  A  full,  free  salvation  is  proclaimed 
grandly  from  the  pulpits  of  Christendom,  with  few 


120  ATONEMENT. 

exceptions;  while  a  fuller,  deeper  estimate  is  being 
placed  upon  Christ's  work  for  his  people.  Practi- 
cally, the  medium  theology  is  that  of  a  large  section 
of  the  Christian  world;  and  we  trust  that  in  giv- 
ing it  more  definite  form  and  systematic  expression 
this  book  will  in  some  measure  help  to  a  greater 
unity. 

SECTION  I. — Propitiation. 

Knowing  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  Univer- 
salism,  how  to  avoid  it  logically,  and  yet  receive 
the  truth  that  Christ  is  a  propitiation  for  all  men, 
has  been  a  great  problem. 

All  difficulties  grow  out  of  the  bargain  and  sale 
theory.  So  many  to  be  saved,  so  much  suffering 
to  be  endured — uan  exact  equivalent "  —like  the 
pound  of  flesh  of  old  Shylock.  There  evidently 
underlies  this,  the  thought  that  Christ's  sufferings 
would  have  been  increased  or  diminished,  if  more 
or  less  were  saved.  This  loses  sight  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  "the  altar  that  sanctifies  the  gift." 
The  sufferings  of  Christ  would  have  been  no  less 
if  only  one  had  been  saved,  and  no  more  if  all  were 
saved. 

The  divinity  did  not  suffer,  only  the  humanity; 
but  the  union  of  divinity  with  humanity  gave  to 
those  sufferings  an  infinite  value.  How  far  this 
scatters  the  thoughts  of  men  as  to  u  exact  equiva- 
lent," u relaxation, "  etc.  An  u exact  equivalent," 
so  much  suffering  for  so  many  saved,  as  if  the  di- 
vinity could  be  parceled  out  and  the  infinite  become 
finite  !  How  it  degrades  the  work  of  Christ.  The 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  121 

divinity  gave  to  those  sufferings  a  value  that  far, 
infinitely  far,  exceeds  the  needs  of  humanity.  This 
is  quite  another  thing  from  needless,  unnecessary 
suffering.  The  value  of  the  sufferings  is  not  in 
their  extent,  but  in  the  person  of  the  sufferer. 

This  broad  view  of  the  value  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings leads  to  a  twofold  view  of  propitiation;  one 
general,  the  other  special.  One  the  ground  upon 
which  Christ  is  the  available  substitute  for  all  men, 
the  other  the  ground  upon  which  he  becomes  the 
actual  substitute  of  his  people  only.  On  the  sup- 
position that  sins  are  all  counted,  as  we  foot  up  the 
sum  total  of  a  man's  indebtedness,  their  exact  de- 
merit estimated  and  the  exact  suffering  due  to  this 
borne  by  Christ,  such  a  distinction  would  be  im- 
possible. 

The  Day  of  Atonement  presents  more  this  gen- 
eral aspect  of  propitiation,  hence  the  two  goats; 
whereas  in  sin-offerings  for  individuals,  there  was 
only  one. 

Looking  at  the  work  of  the  Day  of  Atonement 
we  find  that  Aaron  first  makes  atonement  for  him- 
self and  his  house,  because  as  a  type  of  Christ  he 
must  be  clean.  Then  we  read  : 

' '  He  shall  make  an  atonement  for  the  holy  place, 
because  of  the  uncleanness  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  because  of  their  transgressions  in  all  their  un- 
cleanness."— Lev.  xvi.  1 6. 

God  could  not  have  remained  for  one  moment  in 
the  midst  of  his  people,  but  for  the  blood;  and 
therefore  the  tabernacle  and  its  rich  provision  for 


122  ATONEMENT. 

man's  need,  all  stood  in  the  power  of  the  blood. 
The  uncleanness  of  the  people  separated  from  God, 
hence,  atonement  must  be  made  for — in  order  to  ob- 
tain or  retain — 

u  The  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  that  re- 
maineth  among  them  in  the  midst  of  their  un- 
cleanness." 

This  points  out  a  view  of  the  atonement  that  is 
all  important,  that  which  is  general,  and  in  virtue 
of  which  Christ  is  an  available  substitute  for  every 
man. 

Who  has  not  heard  preachers  proclaiming  that 
God  is  angry  with  the  sinner;  representing  him  in 
such  an  attitude  that  the  sinner  has  to  "cry  for 
mercy,"  and  beg  and  plead  and  weep  and  mourn  to 
make  God  favorable?  This  gospel  of  hate  is  not 
that  of  the  New  Testament,  but  is  foreign  to  its 
spirit  and  teaching.  The  psalmist  says : 

"God  is  angry  with  the  wicked  every  day."  — 
Ps.  vii.  ii. 

But  the  words  ' '  with  the  wicked ' '  are  supplied 
by  the  translators. 

The  Old  Testament  everywhere  proclaimed  that 
God  was  separated  from  the  race  on  account  of  sin 
— "angry  every  day."  What  this  anger  was  we 
have  already  seen;  and  as  long  as  the  demand  was 
not  met  and  sin  was  not  atoned  for,  God  remained 
"angry  every  day." 

Of  course  the  time  element  does  not  apply  to 
God,  wherefore  God  was  dealing  in  grace  in  every 
age.  Yet  as  a  dispensation  it  represented  God  as 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  123 

alienated  from  men.  Moses,  in  the  symbolical  vis- 
ion granted  to  him,  sees  God  with  his  face  turned 
away — his  attitude  to  men  before  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah.  Even  when  he  comes  to  dwell  in  the 
tabernacle,  the  veil  hanging  in  front  of  the  holy 
place  tells  that  God  is  still  unreconciled — "angry 
every  day." 

But  how  different  now  !  When  the  Babe  was 
born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  the  angels  burst  into 
singing,  and  their  grand  anthem  carries  to  all  na- 
tions the  tidings  of: 

' '  On  earth  peace,  good-will  toward  men. ' ' 
This  is  the  gospel — the  good  spell,  or  story — of 
good-will  to  men. 

At  the  close  of  his  life,  when  his  great  mission 
is  ended,  we  hear  him  as  he  hangs  bleeding  on  the 
cross  triumphantly  exclaiming : 
"It  is  finished." 

At  once  the  hand  of  God's  love  reaches  down  and 
rends  the  veil  of  the  temple  from  "the  top  to  the 
bottom."  Not  from  the  bottom  to  the  top,  as  if 
rent  from  earth,  but  from  the  top  to  the  bottom. 
Not  on  one  side,  not  a  mere  slit,  but  in  the  very 
midst. 

4 '  His  love  unknown  hath  broken  every  barrier 
down. ' ' 

God  has  been  perfectly  propitiated;  Christ's  suf- 
ferings meet  all  demands  and  cover  over  the  sins  of 
the  race.  God  is  reconciled,  not  he  has  to  be. 

' '  To  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself."  How?  "Not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them." — 2  Cor.  v.  19. 


i24  ATONEMENT. 

God  is  no  longer  angry,  so  that  now  it  is  not  God 
that  has  to  be  reconciled  to  the  sinner,  but  the  sin- 
ner to  God.  This  is  what  the  rent  veil  proclaims. 
We  have  thus,  as  the  result  of  Christ's  work,  God 
propitiated,  all  barriers  removed,  and  he  able  to 
deal  in  grace  with  mankind.  This  view  is  general, 
not  special,  and  fully  explains  those  texts  which 
present  the  work  of  Jesus  as  for  all  men. 

"I  exhort,  therefore,  that,  first  of  all,  supplica- 
tions, prayers  ....  be  made  for  all  men 

For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God 
our  Savior.  Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved, 
and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For 
there  is  one  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus ;  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." — i  Tim.  ii.  2-6. 

' '  For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation 
hath  appeared  to  all  men ." — Titus  ii.  n. 

u  That  by  the  grace  of  God  he  should  taste  death 
for  every  man." — Heb.  ii.  9. 

4 '  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for 
ours  only,  but  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 
— i  John  ii.  2. 

In  this  last  the  words,  u  the  sins  of,"  are  supplied, 
there  being  nothing  to  correspond  to  them  in  the 
Greek.  Their  omission  marks  a  distinction  between 
propitiation  in  its  aspect  to  the  believer  and  to  the 
world.  As  an  imperfect  illustration  of  what  we 
mean  :  If  a  supper  has  been  provided  for  every  cit- 
izen, and  all  are  invited,  we  have  this  general  view 
of  propitiation.  It  would  be  an  available  supper 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  125 

for  every  man.  Ample  provision,  and  an  honest 
invitation  to  come.  But  as  none  receive  any  benefit 
from  the  supper  but  those  who  come,  we  have  pro- 
pitiation in  its  special  sense.  An  actual  supper  for 
those  who  came  only. 

"  Behold  the  L,amb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world." — John  i.  29. 

It  is  not  the  sins  of  the  world,  which  would  be 
special,  but  "the  sin"  which  is  general.  It  is  not 
"bear  the  sin,"  but  "taketh  away"  Sin — the  sin 
of  the  world — was  between  God  and  the  race,  so 
that  God  was  "angry  every  day;  "  but  through  the 
merit  of  Christ's  work  sin  has  been  put  out  of  the 
way.  God  has  been  reconciled,  and  the  way  opened 
for  mercy  to  come  to  the  sinner,  so  that  all  may  be 
saved. 

The  general  view  of  propitiation  carries  with  it: 

First.  It  is  because  of  it  that  any  blessings  are 
enjoyed  by  the  unsaved.  It  is  on  the  ground  of 
Christ's  propitiatory  work  that  men  who  are  not 
Christians  eat  and  drink  and  live  on  in  their  sins. 
The  breath  with  which  men  oppose  God  they  owe 
to  the  work  of  Jesus,  for  if  it  were  not  for  the 
atonement  they  would  long  since  have  been  in  tor- 
ment. Propitiation  lays  the  foundation  for  this 
being  a  day  of  grace  when  mercy  pleads  to  spare  a 
little  longer. 

Second.  By  virtue  of  propitiation  in  this  general 
sense,  God  being  reconciled,  judgment  passes  to  the 
Son.  Having  suffered  and  died,  meeting  the  claims 
of  divine  holiness,  to  call  to  account  becomes  his 


i26  ATONEMENT. 

right,  and  in  the  closing  scenes  pictured  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  we  begin  to  hear  of  the 
'  *  wrath  of  the  L,amb. ' '  Here,  again,  oneness 
with  Christ  carries  us  on  to  share  in  that  judgment. 
"Know  ye  not  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world  ....  we  shall  judge  angels." — i  Cor.  vi. 
1-4. 

Third.  By  virtue  of  propitiation  in  its  general 
sense,  the  offer  of  salvation  is  made  to  men.  So 
hateful  is  sin,  and  so  completely  does  it  separate, 
that  without  the  blood  there  could  be  no  ground 
even  for  the  offer  of  salvation. 

Thus  the  gospel,  on  the  ground  of  propitiation, 
is  preached  to  ' '  every  creature, ' '  and  because  of  the 
infinite  value  of  the  blood,  "whosoever  will  may 
come,"  and  whoever  comes  will  be -saved. 

SECTION  II. — Substitution. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  two  goats  were 
closely  united,  so  as  to  constitute  a  sin-offering, 
because  it  is  the  same  sacrifice,  but  presented  from 
two  different  stand-points.  Of  course,  in  all  this  it 
must  be  remembered  that  there  is  no  past,  present, 
and  future  from  God's  stand-point,  and  that  in  the 
light  of  God's  eternity  the  seeming  difficulties  that 
men  urge  against  the  atonement  have  no  real  force, 
as  the  whole  work  is  one  and  indivisible  with  him. 
But  different  types  are  used  for  our  instruction,  and 
it  is  truth  as  revealed  to  us  that  has  to  be  harmo- 
nized with  our  limited  conceptions.  Conflict  here 
does  not  imply  conflict  in  reality  from  God's  stand- 
point. While  we  can  discriminate  between  the 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  127 

two  goats  we  must  also  remember  that  it  is  but  one 
sacrifice,  but  one  work.  The  truth  of  the  live 
goat  is  expressed  in  the  following  texts : 

' c  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." — Matt, 
xxvi.  28. 

' '  So  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of 
many." — Heb.  ix.  28. 

' '  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our 
sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken,  smitten 
of  God,  and  afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for 
our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities : 
the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and 
with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we,  like  sheep, 
have  gone  astray,  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him 
the  iniquity  of  us  all."  —  Isa.  liii.  4-6. 

"Who  his  own  self  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree." — i  Peter  ii.  24. 

These  give  us  simply  the  truth  as  to  the  live 
goat.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  break  the 
force  of  these  scriptures  by  a  reference  to  Matt.  viii. 
17,  where  Christ  quotes  from  Isaiah  : 

' '  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by 
Isaiah  the  prophet,  saying  himself  took  our  infirmi- 
ties, and  bare  our  sicknesses." 

Bushnell  says  of  this  : 

"It  is  the  one  scripture  that  gives,  beyond  ques- 
tion, the  Bible  usage  of  all  vicarious  expressions  in 
the  Old  Testament." 

By  comparison  with  Isaiah,  we  find  a  difference 
that  gives  a  clew  to  the  meaning  of  Matthew. 


i28  ATONEMENT. 

Isaiah  says : 

"  Surely  he  hath  borne  (the  Septuagint  translates 
this  <peto(o,  pheroo)  onr  griefs  and  carried  our  sor- 
rows." 

Matthew,  quoting  freely,  but  not  literally,  says : 

' '  Himself  took  (l^a/9e,  elabe)  our  infirmities,  and 
bare  our  sicknesses." 

This  use  of  Ittafls  for  <pepto  is  the  key  to  a  sound 
exegesis. 

All  sickness  and  suffering  is  the  result  of  sin. 
When,  therefore,  Christ  healed  the  sick,  it  was  dis- 
tinctly on  the  ground  of  atonement,  without  which 
none  would  have  been  healed.  It  will  be  seen  from 
Matthew  that  the  healing  of  the  sick  was  coupled 
with  the  casting  out  of  the  devils.  Hence,  John 
says  : 

"For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  mani- 
fested that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  ? ' ' 
— i  John  iii.  8. 

How  did  he  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil  ? 

( '  That  through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that 
had  the  power  of  death — that  is,  the  devil." 

It  was  by  his  death  and  sufferings  that  Christ  be- 
came victor,  able  to  deliver  the  captive,  and  give 
healing  to  the  sick,  and  eyes  to  the  blind.  (See 
Luke  iv.  1 8,  etc.)  It  all  links  itself  to  the  cross. 
Who  but  the  one  that  became  a  man  u  that  through 
death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of 
death,"  could  say  to  a  Lazarus,  "come  forth,"  and 
then  only  because  he  was  ' '  the  resurrection  and  the 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  129 

life."  This  shows  that  it  was  in  anticipation,  in 
the  power  of  his  resurrection,  as  having  made 
atonement  on  the  cross.  Who  but  he  who  came 
"to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,"  could  have 
healed  the  sick,  and  then  only  as  the  world's  great 
sin  bearer?  It  was  in  anticipation,  the  removal 
of  the  sickness,  on  the  ground  of  the  bearing  of 
the  sin  on  the  cross.  This  is  the  reason  why  Isaiah 
is  quoted,  and  why  the  word  is  changed.  Isaiah 
emphasizes  the  bearing,  Matthew  the  removal — one 
the  cause,  the  other  the  effect. 

The  use  of  IAa/9s  for  ^sfjco  is  the  key  to  a  still 
further  opening  of  the  truth.  The  use  of  l^a/9e 
would  not  be  justified  unless  it  expressed  an  idea 
contained  in  the  Hebrew  word  that  it  translates. 

There  is  much  controversy  as  to  what  is  meant 
by  bearing  sin.  Some,  like  Dr.  Hodge,  explain  it 
to  mean — 

u  To  bear  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  sin." 

Others,  quoting  Matthew,  claim  that  it  means  to 
remove  sin,  in  the  same  sense  that  Christ  removed 
the  disease — that  is,  by  taking  it  away,  or  curing  it. 
In  the  controversy,  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  nasa  has  been  largely  discussed,  but  in  look- 
ing for  its  meaning  we  must  follow  some  order  to 
arrive  at  a  sound  conclusion. 

Two  Hebrew  words  are  translated  "bear"  in 
connection  with  sin  bearing. 

i.  N£^  (nasa).  This  word  means  primarily  "to 
take  up,  to  lift  up,  to  raise."  It  is  translated 
"take,"  "take  up,"  "lift  up,"  some  two  hundred 
10 


130  ATONEMENT. 

and  fifty  times  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  expresses 
the  lifting  up  of  the  hands,  head,  countenance, 
eyes,  voice,  heart,  and  soul,  or  the  taking  up  of  a 
weapon,  etc. 

In  the  development  of  this  primary  meaning  of 
"  to  take  up,"  it  acquires  that  of  "  to  take  away" 
from  which  we  get  the  application,  to  take  away 
the  sin  or  guilt  of  any  one,  translated  '  ^forgive. ' ' 

It  also  acquires  from  the  primary  sense  of  "to 
take  up  ' '  that  of  "  to  take  upon,  to  bear,  to  carry, ' ' 
this  being  applied  to  bearing  sorrow  or  sin. 

The  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  u  forgive" 
comes  from  the  developed  meaning  of  u  take 
away. ' ' 

Its  use  in  the  sense  of  bearing  sin  comes  from  the 
developed  meaning  of  u  take  upon" 

Any  argument  from  the  meaning  forgive,  can 
have  no  force  in  respect  to  "sin  bearing."  It  is 
only  the  primary  sense  of  ' '  take  up ' '  that  can 
apply.  If  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  bear- 
ing was  a  development  of  the  idea  of  forgiveness, 
then  it  would  have. 

The  idea  of  carrying — taking  upon — is  in  the 
word  when  used  of  sin  bearing.  The  sin  is  on— 
borne  by  or  carried  by — that  which  carries  it,  either 
in  a  ritual  or  a  real  sense.  We  believe  that  the 
dictionaries  sustain  this  definition,  and  that  Bible 
usage  will  be  found  in  harmony  with  it. 

2.    '3D   (sabal}.    This  word  means  "  to  bear,  to 
carry. ' ' 

Both  these  words  are  used  in  Isaiah  liii.  4,  while 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  131 

in  Isaiah  liii.  n  it  is  sabal,  not  nasa.  That  sabal 
expresses  the  idea  of  bearing  the  punishment  of 
sin  can  not  be  questioned,  thus : 

"  Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not;  and  we 
have  borne  (sabal}  their  iniquities." — L,am.  v.  7. 

After  careful  examination  we  believe  that  sabal 
is  always  used  to  express  the  idea  of  bearing  sin  in 
the  sense  of  bearing  its  punishment,  but  never  in 
the  sense  of  removing  it. 

Nasa  means  more  than  this.  It  not  only  ex- 
presses the  idea  of  bearing  the  penalty,  about 
which  as  to  some  texts  there  can  be  no  dispute,  but 
it  expresses  more — the  taking  away  of  the  sin. 
Nasa  expresses  both  ideas,  the  bearing  and  the  re- 
moving. This  is  indicated  by  Matthew.  To  deny 
the  sense  of  removing  is  to  make  Matthew  unmean- 
ing. To  deny  the  sense  of  bearing  is  to  ignore  the 
use  of  sabal.  If  yspco  had  been  used  in  Matthew, 
the  criticism  of  Bushnell  and  others  would  have 
some  application.  Still  the  quotation,  with  the  use 
of  £^«/9e,  indicates  a  meaning  overlooked  by  Hodge. 

Our  theory  harmonizes  both.  The  bearing  of  sin 
certainly  was  the  bearing  of  its  penalty,  but  this 
bearing  carried  with  it  its  removal.  Bushnell  and 
Hodge  are  but  the  two  sides  of  the  same  grand 
truth.  The  sin  bearing  could  never  avail  for  poor 
sinners,  unless  it  included  the  removal  of  the  sin 
itself  as  well  as  its  penalty. 

Substitution  implies,  in  the  nature  of  things,  a 
limitation.  It  is  not  limited  by  any  act  of  God's, 
nor  by  any  failure  in  the  provision  made.  It  is  not 


132  ATONEMENT. 

owing  to  any  "inability"  that  God  removes  in  the 
case  of  one  man,  but  not  in  that  of  another,  but 
simply  and  alone  to  the  free,  willful  rejection  of 
Christ. 

"  Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have 
life." — John  v.  40. 

The  sin  was  transferred  to  the  head  of  the  scape- 
goat by  confession  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 
This  last,  as  the  sign  of  identity,  points,  in  the 
type,  to  our  union  with  Christ  in  the  antitype. 

There  can  be  no  substitution  without  the  transfer 
of  sins,  there  can  be  no  transfer  without  union,  as 
we  have  shown;  there  can  be  no  union  without 
faith.  Hence,  substitution  is  limited;  it  requires 
the  assent  of  both  parties.  No  substitution  is  pos- 
sible without  mutual  consent,  hence,  the  "receiv- 
ing," or  believing  on  Christ,  makes  the  substitution 
individual  and  personal. 

Propitiation  is  unlimited,  because  it  rests  upon 
the  will  of  God  alone;  it  is  general,  because  what 
propitiates  for  one  does  for  all;  it  is  a  single  act, 
because  it  removes  the  anger  of  one  being  only. 

Substitution  is  limited,  because  it  rests  upon  the 
wills  of  millions  of  men;  it  is  special,  because  it 
requires  personal  acceptance  for  its  completion;  it 
is  not  a  single  act,  because  it  requires  a  change  in 
many.  It  is  always  personal. 

Propitiation,  on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  had  a 
universal  aspect;  the  blood  carried  into  the  holiest 
was  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  all  mankind,  the  door 
of  Gentile  proselytism  standing  wide  open.  The 


DAY  OF  ATONEMENT.  133 

whole  race  could  have  been  blessed  without  adding 
to  the  amount  of  blood  that  was  shed.  One  goat 
was  sufficient  for  mankind.  But  none  received  any 
benefit  from  that  blood,  but  those  whose  sins  were 
transferred  to — laid  upon — the  live  goat.  Substi- 
tution was,  therefore,  limited  to  those  whose  sins 
were  confessed.  If  all  had  become  proselytes,  no 
more  blood  would  have  been  shed,  but  many  more 
sins  would  have  been  transferred. 

The  sins  were  not  transferred  until  after  the 
death  of  the  goat,  and  the  blood  had  been  carried 
into  the  holiest;  this  is  the  one  fact  that  empha- 
sizes the  distinction.  One  goat  shows  what  Christ 
did  by  his  death,  the  other  what  Christ  is  as  risen 
—the  sin  bearer  for  all  who  will  .lay  their  sins  upon 
him. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    OFFERINGS. 

Ill  this  chapter  we  enter  upon  a  subject  of  the 
deepest  interest,  one  so  closely  connected  with  the 
atonement  that  it  is  very  largely  the  key — in  type— 
of  Christ's  work  for  us. 

The  cross  is  many-sided ;  for  which  reason  it 
takes  many  types  to  bring  out  the  fullness  of 
Christ's  work.  All  the  offerings  are  essential  to  a 
full  representation  of  his  work  in  its  varied  rela- 
tions. 

In  searching  for  the  meaning  of  the  five  offerings, 
we  find  that  four  of  them  entail  the  death  of  a  vic- 
tim. One  does  not.  This  shows  that  the  meat- 
offering is  a  type  of  Christ  in  his  life^  the  other 
four  of  Christ's  death. 

Then  we  find  a  further  distinction  in  the  fact  that 
two  of  them  are  u sweet  savor"  offerings,  while 
the  sin  and  trespass  offerings  are  not. 

Of  the  two  that  are  not,  one,  the  sin-offering, 
was  burnt  "outside  the  camp,"  the  other  upon  the 
altar. 

The  burnt  and  peace  offerings  are  distinguished 
by  the  one  being  entirely  consumed,  and  the  other 
being  partly  eaten  by  the  priests. 

These  are  all -important  differences,  and  help  iis 


OFFERINGS.  135 

to  see  the  view  of  Christ's  work  which  they  repre- 
sent. 

As  the  meat- offer  ing  is  a  type  of  Christ  in  his 
life,  it  will  hardly  be  in  place  to  discuss  it,  at  any 
rate  here.  As  a  type  it  represented  the  perfect 
humanity  of  Christ  (fine  flour),  conceived  and 
anointed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (mingled  and  anointed 
with  oil),  and  the  perfection  of  that  life  tested  and 
brought  out  by  temptation,  suffering,  and  law  (a 
threefold  testing  by  fire).  The  thought  of  atone- 
ment does  not  connect  itself  with  the  meat-offering, 
as  it  is  only  on  the  cross  that  Christ  "bears  our 
sins  "  — u  on  the  tree"  Hence,  instead  of  speaking 
of  the  priest  as  making  atonement,  we  read: 

"And  the  priest  shall  burn  the  memorial  of  it 
upon  the  altar,  to  be  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a 
sweet  savor  unto  the  Lord." — Lev.  ii.  2. 

That  during  his  life  Christ  suffered,  is  true,  but 
these  sufferings  were  not  vicarious,  being  designed 
to  bring  out  the  perfection  of  that  life  as  "  without 
blemish." 

A  doctrine  that  has  many  advocates,  especially  at 
Oxford,  in  England,  represents  Christ  as  taking 
believers  into  union  with  himself  by  his  incarnation, 
giving  to  the  incarnation  the  value  we  give  to  the 
resurrection.  The  objections  to  this  are  numerous. 
It  overlooks  the  holy  character  of  Christ's  manhood, 
it  leads  to  a  low  estimate  of  the  ruin  sin  has 
wrought,  and  passes  by  the  necessity  for  death  and 
judgment.  On  this  ground  Christ's  death  could 
hardlv  be  vicarioiis. 


136  ATONEMENT. 

In  opposition  many  scriptures  can  be  cited. 

' '  Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground 
and  die,  it  abideth  alone;  but  if  it  die,  it  bring\th 
forth  much  fruit." — John  xii.  24. 

No  union  without  death.  The  figure  that  more 
than  any  other  represents  the  unity  for  which 
Christ  prayed,  is  that  of  the  body,  but  the  body  was 
not  formed  until  Pentecost : 

"He  raised  him  from  the  dead  ....  and  gave 
him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  church." 
Eph.  i.  20-22. 

The  meat-offering  was  usually  coupled  with  the 
burnt-offering : 

uThe  burnt-offering  and  its  meat-offering." 

Before  we  examine  the  offerings  in  detail  it  is 
well  to  refer  to  the  design  of  sacrifice. 

Bushnell,  and  the  advocates  of  the  Moral  Influ- 
ence theory  generally,  deny  that  the  Mosaic  sacri- 
fices were  expiatory,  and  teach  that  they  were  to 
express  the  repentance  and  spiritual  aspirations  of 
the  worshipers.  "The  essence  was  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood,  as  the  bearer  of  life,  upon  God's  altar; 
this  being  a  symbolical  representation  of  the  giving 
of  the  worshiper's  life  up  to  the.  service  of  God, 
in  other  words,  his  returning  back  to  God  by  re- 
pentance and  faith  .and  self-dedication,  after  being 
separated  from  him  by  sin." 

This  was  neither  the  Jewish  nor  heathen  idea  of 
sacrifice.  The  evidence  is  simply  overwhelming 
that  both  heathen  and  Jewish  sacrifices  were  to  pro- 
pitiate God  by  an  expiation.  The  occasion  of  their 


OFFERINGS.  137 

being  offered,  the  qualifications  of  the  victims,  the 
terms  that  are  used,  the  ceremonies  connected  with 
them  and  their  effects  when  offered,  all  show  that 
the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  were  vicarious.  Jewish 
testimony  might  be  multiplied  to  establish  the  fact 
that  the  Jews  so  regarded  them. 

' '  The  imposition  of  hands  was  a  tacit  declara- 
tion on  the  part  of  every  offerer  that  he  removed 
his  sins  from  himself  and  transferred  them  to  that 
animal." — Rabbi  Levi  Ben  Gerson. 

"Whenever  anyone  sins  through  ignorance,  or 
even  with  knowledge,  he  transfers  his  sins  from 
himself  and  lays  them  upon  the  head  of  the  victim." 
— Isaac  Ben  Arama. 

u  The  blood  makes  atonement  for  the  soul;  the 
meaning  is  life  instead  of  life." — Aben  Ezra. 

"It  is  just  that  his  blood  be  shed  and  that  his 
body  be  burned.  But  the  creator  of  his  mercy  ac- 
cepted the  victim  of  him  as  his  substitute  and  ran- 
som, that  the  blood  of  the  animal  might  be  shed 
instead  of  his  blood — that  is,  that  the  life  of  the 
animal  be  given  for  his  life."—  Rabbi  Moses  Ben 
Nachman. 

We  believe  it  is  beyond  controversy  that  the  Jews 
regarded  their  sacrifices  as  vicarious.  Some  of  the 
advocates  of  other  theories  admit  this,  but  deny 
that  in  this  they  were  typical. 

"Jewish  sacrifices  rather  show  us  what  the  sacri- 
fices of  Christ  was  not  than  what  it  was." 

As  to  heathen  sacrifices,  they  were  of  two  kinds, 
distinguished  as  hostia  honoraria  and  hostia  pia- 


138  ATONEMENT. 

cularis.  The  first  was  simply  a  meal  offered  as 
expressive  of  the  relation  of  friendly  dependence. 
The  latter  was  to  appease  the  divine  anger.  Thus 
during  the  reign  of  Titus,  so  many  calamities  came 
upon  the  people  that  we  find  him  offering  sacrifices 
to  turn  away  the  anger  of  the  gods. 

"  For  the  relief  of  the  people  during  the  plague 
he  employed,  in  the  way  of  sacrifices  and  remedies, 
all  means  both  human  and  divine." — Seutonius, 
Titiis  8. 

SECTION  I.  —  The  Burnt-offering. 

The  cross  may  be  viewed  from  two  stand-points. 
The  sinner's,  as  he  sees  in  the  death  of  Christ  that 
which  fully  meets  his  need,  and  that  of  the  Father, 
as  -he  beholds  in  that  cross  Christ  doing  his  will. 
Thus  we  have  the  sin  and  trespass  offerings  setting 
forth  Christ's  death  as  bearing  sin  and  making  ex- 
piation. These  can  never  be  "sweet  savor"  offer- 
ings, for  God  can  never  be  regarded  as  taking  de- 
light in  this  aspect  of  Christ's  work.  The  cross 
has  a  yet  grander  side;  for  on  that  cross  God  was 
glorified  by  the  work  of  his  Son.  This  is  the  truth 
of  the  burnt-offering.  We  are  apt  to  lose  sight  of 
this  Godward  side  of  the  cross,  looking  at  it  from 
that  of  our  self-interest  alone.  But  while  it  is  true 
that  Christ,  by  his  death,  makes  an  atonement,  and 
that  this  is  fully  brought  out  by  the  offerings,  the 
cross  meant  much  more.  It  was  there  that  Christ, 
dying  u  for  the  ungodly,"  was  fulfilling  the  great 
mission  of  his  advent,  which  was  the  glory  of  God. 

Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  OGod." — Heb.  x.  9. 


<  t 


OFFERINGS.  139 

"I  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth;  I  have 
finished  the  work  which  thou  gavest  me  to  do." — 
John  xvii.  4. 

This  is  the  key  to  Christ's  life  and  death.  As 
one  writer  says : 

"  It  was  an  ineffable  delight  to  him  to  accomplish 
the  will  of  God  on  this  earth.  No  one  had  ever 
done  this  before.  Some  had,  through  grace,  done 
'that  which  was  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord;' 
but  no  one  had  ever  perfectly,  invariably,  from  first 
to  last,  without  hesitation,  and  without  divergence, 
done  the  will  of  God.  But  this  was  exactly  what 
the  Lord  Jesus  did.  He  was  '  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross '  (Phil.  ii.  8).  '  He 
steadfastly  set  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem. '  And  as 
he  walked  from  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  to  Cal- 
vary, the  intense  devotion  of  his  heart  told  itself 
forth  in  these  accents,  '  The  cup  which  my  Father 
hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it? '  " 

How  resplendent  with  glory  the  whole  life,  suf- 
ferings, and  death  of  Christ  becomes,  under  the 
influence  of  this  precious  truth.  What  wonder  the 
Father  delights  in  it,  or  that  it  should  be  a  "sweet 
savor"  unto  him.  The  burnt-offering  shows  this 
in  type.  It  represents  Christ  as  glorifying  God  by 
doing  his  will,  and  not  Christ  as  sin  bearer.  Thus 
the  very  name  of  the  offering  is  properly  incense- 
offering,  it  being  the  same  Hebrew  word  that  is  so 
translated  elsewhere.  How  rich  !  How  fragrant ! 
What  perfect  incense  is  this  view  of  the  cross  !  It 
makes  it  the  offering,  so  that  the  altar  becomes  the 
"altar  of  burnt-offering,"  being  offered  night  and 
morning,  as  if  God  would  have  this  thought  of  the 
cross  always  before  his  eyes. 


140  ATONEMENT. 

The  same  truth  is  brought  out  by  the  peace-offer- 
ing, but  there,  our  participation  in  the  delight  that 
this  thought  of  Christ's  work  gives  is  the  leading 
idea. 

'  ''Let  him  offer  a  male  without  blemish. ' ' 

Here  we  have  a  very  beautiful  figure  of  Christ  as 
the  Holy  One — "without  blemish." 

The  meat-offering  represents  the  life  of  Jesus 
tested  by  fire,  so  as  to  exhibit  its  perfect  sinlessness. 
But  the  more  that  life  is  tested,  whether  by  suffer- 
ing, law,  or  temptation,  the  more  is  its  perfection 
manifested.  None  but  a  holy  being  could  die  the 
just  for  the  unjust.  To  a  spiritual  Christian,  the 
investigation  of  this  theme  is  one  of  the  most  won- 
derful of  all,  leading  to  the  highest  praise  and  wor- 
ship, as  he  apprehends  the  moral  glory  of  Jesus. 
One  reason  why  so  many  types  are  given  us  is  to 
bring  out  this  moral -glory.  All  figures  being  im- 
perfect, there  is  danger  of  man's  pressing  them  so 
as  to  make  a  blemish  in  the  sinless  man. 

How  wonderful  is  the  perfection  of  Christ.  Com- 
ing to  do  the  Father's  will,  never  for  one  moment 
does  he  falter.  In  every  desire,  look,  word,  and  act, 
we  see  the  Father's  will  as  the  spring  and  source  of 
all.  When  tempted  of  the  devil,  men  have  said, 
there  would  have  been  no  wrong  in  his  satisfying 
hunger  by  an  exercise  of  his  miraculous  powers; 
but  that  is  to  lose  sight  of  the  great  end  of  his 
life: 

"I  come  to  do  thy  will." 

Christ's  long  fast  of  forty  days  was  not  such  a 
fast  as  fallen  humanity  would  have  endured  without 


OFFERINGS.  141 

divine  help.  Being  holy,  there  was  no  necessity  of 
death ;  and  hence  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
he  tmderwent  any  suffering  during  the  forty  days. 
The  words  indicate  the  reverse  : 

"And  when  he  had  fasted  forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  he  was  afterward  an  hungered. ' ' 

This  hunger  was  not  so  much  the  result  of  his 
voluntary  will,  but  of  the  Father's  will  cheerfully 
submitted  to.  Hence,  the  force  of  the  temptation 
to  make  bread  of  the  stones.  If  it  was  the  Father's 
will  that  he  should  hunger,  he  will  submit. 

' '  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every 
word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God." 

It  is  thus  that  his  temptations  manifest  the  per- 
fection of  his  life. 

How  wonderful  the  perfection  of  Christ !  For 
eighteen  centuries  men  have  been  seeking  faults  in 
the  character  of  Jesus;  and  where  they  have  been 
claimed,  it  has  been  because  of  failure  to  apprehend 
the  truth  as  to  his  person. 

Thus  in  the  garden,  in  the  agony  he  endured, 
some  see  a  shrinking  from  mere  physical  pain,  and 
thus  proclaim  a  blemish.  But  that  which  to  the 
natural  man  seems  like  shrinking,  to  the  eye  of 
faith  but  serves  to  bring  out  his  perfection.  It 
can  not  be  said  that  Jesus  was  willing  "  to  be  made 
sin,"  even  though  it  was  without  criminality. 
That  would  have  in  it  a  shade  of  wrong — a  blem- 
ish. But  if  it  is  the  Father's  will  he  will  drain  the 
cup  to  the  very  dregs.  See  how  carefully  the  Bible 
guards  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus.  The  meaning  of 


142  ATONEMENT. 

the  agony  in  the  garden,  with  its  despairing  cry,  is 
thus  the  shrinking  of  Jesus  from  bearing  sin  and 
taking  the  sinner's  place.  It  could  not  be  other- 
wise with  a  holy  being.  Yet  the  perfection  appears 
as  he  triumphantly  exclaims  : 

' '  Nevertheless  thy  will,  not  mine  be  done. ' ' 
The  wonderful  perfection  of  Christ  is  seen  in  his 
life,    it  shines   out  in  his  death.     Always,  every- 
where, he  is  "  without  blemish." 

"He  shall  offer  it  of  his  own  voluntary  zvill." 
The  Revised  Version  is  clearer : 

' '  He  shall  offer  it  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting,  that  he  may  be  accepted  before  the  Lord. ' ' 

This  is  never  said  of  any  offering  but  the  burnt- 
offering.  Of  the  sin  and  trespass  offerings  it  says : 

"And  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him, 
and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him. ' ' 

This  is  a  distinction  we  must  recognize,  as  it  is 
of  deep  interest.  While  it-  is  certain  that  Jesus 
must  bear  our  sins  to  save  us,  we  can  not  regard 
God  as  delighting  in  this  blood  shedding  or  sin 
bearing.  Yet  this  has  been  the  thought  of  many; 
and  this  imperfect  conception  of  Christ's  work  has 
led,  by  its  very  grossness,  to  serious  difficulties  in 
the  minds  of  earnest  thinkers. 

Christ's  obedience  was  unto  death;  he  perfectly 
carried  out  the  Father's  will,  and  by  his  finished 
work  provided  salvation  for  men.  From  this  com- 
pleted work  that  so  fully  glorifies  God,  there  goes 
up  a  rare  incense,  a  "sweet  savor."  This  is  the 


OFFERINGS.  143 

burnt  or  incense  offering;  and  it  is  this  that  is  "ac- 
cepted for  him. ' ' 

*  ^And  he  shall  put  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the 
burnt-offering;  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to 
make  atonement  for  him." 

The  laying  on  of  hands  has  a  very  prominent 
place  in  the  ceremonies  of  Judaism.  In  the  sixth 
of  Hebrews  it  is  classed  among  the  fundamental 
principles  held  by  the  Jews.  They  had  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  in  type,  or  figure,  ' '  the  word  of  the  be- 
ginning of  Christ."  So  the  margin  reads,  and  of 
this  Paul  was  writing. 

Perfection  is  the  theme  of  the  Epistle;  perfection 
in  Christ,  in  contrast  to  the  imperfection  under 
Judaism. 

'The  law  made  nothing  perfect,  but  the  bring- 
ing in  of  a  better  hope  did." 

Perfect  access,  a  perfect  priest,  a  perfect  sacrifice, 
and  a  perfect  cleansing,  "once  for  all."  This  is 
what  we  have  in  Christ,  as  Paul  shows  in  contrast 
to  the  imperfection  of  all  under  Judaism.  Leave 
then  (says  Paul),  the  imperfect — the  beginning  of 
the  word  of  Christ — the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Judaism — and  go  on  to  the  perfection  to  be  found 
in  Christ.  Every  thing  that  is  mentioned  by  Paul 
as  elementary,  is  the  Jewish  form  of  the  doctrine, 
while  that  which  is  elementary  to  Christianity — 
Jesus  and  the  resurrection — has  no  place. 

"The  laying  on  of  hands  "  is  among  the  doctrines 
thus  pointed  out.  It  had,  therefore,  an  important 
place  in  the  teaching  of  the  Jew.  It  was  the  sign 


;'l 


144  ATONEMENT. 

of  identity,  by  which  the  worshiper  identified 
himself  with  the  victim,  designated  it  as  his.  It 
was  this  oneness,  or  identity,  that  secured  for  the 
offerer  the  benefits  of  the  offering  he  presented. 
The  offering  itself  was  a  sweet  savor,  and  all  that 
the  offering  of  which  it  was  a  type  meant,  was 
thus  bestowed  upon  the  offerer,  "accepted  for 
him,"  as  the  sacrificial  substitute  of  him  who 
offered  it. 

This  laying  on  of  hands  points,  as  a  type,  to  the 
act  of  faith  by  which  Christ  is  appropriated  and  the 
believer  by  one  Spirit  is  "baptized  into  Christ." 

The  flaying,  the  cutting  into  pieces,  all,  as  types, 
were  but  tests  to  show  that  the  victim  was  really 
"without  blemish."  Perfect  as  a  whole  and  per- 
fect in  every  part.  The  structure  of  the  frame,  the 
joints  and  sinews  must  all  be  laid  bare,  showing  its 
perfection  in  every  part. 

The  burnt-offering  was  peculiarly  God's.  The 
entire  body  was  burnt  upon  the  altar,  none  being 
partaken  of  by  the  priest.  The  skin  alone  was 
preserved,  and  this  belonged  to  the  priest  who  made 
the  offering.  It  was  the  skin  of  the  for«/-offering, 
not  of  the  ^//-offering;  showing  most  beautifully 
in  type,  the  source  and  character  of  that  righteous- 
ness God  provided  when  he  made  for  man  a  "  coat 
of  skins." 

Man  connects  this  righteousness  with  the  sin-of- 
fering— a  penal  righteousness,  or  law  keeping. 
God's  word  connects  it  with  the  burnt-offering,  in 
which,  as  doing  the  Father's  will,  Jesus  glorified 
God. 


OFFERINGS.  145 

It  was  all  burnt,  all  consumed.  It  is  God  who 
delights,  and  into  this  delight  in  its  fullness  no  cre- 
ated intelligence  can  enter.  None  but  the  infinite 
God  can  ever  apprehend  the  infinite  value  of  Christ's 
work,  and  therefore  one  offering  is  given  to  bring 
this  out. 

In  the  Gospels  we  have  Christ  presented  from 
many  stand-points.  Thus  he  is  the  King  of  the 
Jews  in  Matthew,  a  servant  in  Mark,  the  Son  of 
man  in  Luke,  and  the  Son  of  God  in  John.  This 
is  only  one  of  many  keys.  We  find  another  in  the 
offerings.  As  meat-offering  he  is  seen  in  all,  espe- 
cially in  John,  because  the  burnt- offering  is  linked 
with  it  more  than  any  other.  Matthew  gives  Christ 
as  trespass-offering.  Mark  as  sin-offering.  Hence, 
it  is  only  in  these  Gospels  that  we  have  the  record 
of  the  hiding  of  the  Father's  face.  In  Luke  he  is 
the  peace-offering;  and  how,  as  peace-offering,  he 
adds  to  the  beauty  of  his  life!  Here,  only,  have  we 
the  story  of  the  prodigal  son,  of  the  good  Samari- 
tan; and  here  only,  the  words,  "forgive  them,"  on 
the  cross.  In  John  we  have  Christ  as  burnt-offering. 
The  truth  that  runs  all  through  John  is  that  of 
doiiig  the  Father's  will,  glorifying  God.  In  John 
only,  he  cries,  "it  is  finished."  Reading  the  Gos- 
pels in  the  light  of  the  offerings,  and  the  offerings 
in  the  light  of  the  Gospels,  we  find  a  harmony  and 
a  beauty  that  magnifies  the  work  of  Christ. 

SECTION    II.  —  The  Peace- Offering. 

The  peace-offering  is  also  a  sweet  savor  offering, 
and  hence,  does  not  bring  out  directly  the  thought 
ii 


146  ATONEMENT. 

of  sin  bearing.  Of  course,  the  work  of  Christ  is  so 
one,  that  in  all  the  offerings  the  question  of  sin  and 
atonement  is  brought  out;  but  in  this  analysis  we 
are  showing  the  stand-point  from  which  each  offer- 
ing presents  the  work  of  Christ. 

The  peace-offering  gives  us  communion.  It 
presents  Christ's  work  from  the  same  stand- 
point as  the  burnt-offering,  with  this  difference: 
that  in  the  burnt-offering  all  was  consumed,  while 
in  the  peace-offering  a  part  was  reserved  for  the 
priestly  family.  We  have  one  distinct  offering  to 
bring  out  God's  delight  in  the  work  of  his  Son. 
It  is  this  offering  that  is  accepted  for  us.  We  are 
not  accepted  according  to  our  appreciation  of 
Christ's  work,  but  according  to  God}s  estimate  of  it. 
Our  standing  is  not  measured  by  our  feelings,  faith, 
or  knowledge,  but  by  the  measure  of  God's  satisfac- 
tion and  delight  in  the  finished  work  of  Christ. 
How  foolish  to  be  occupied  with  self  instead  of  Christ ! 

In  the  peace-offering,  we  enter  into  this  thought, 
and  have  communion  with  God  in  his  delight  in 
the  work  of  his  Son.  The  breast  and  the  shoulder 
(affection  and  power),  are  reserved  to  be  eaten  by 
the  priestly  family,  in  communion  with  God  and 
each  other. 

No  peace  until  the  blood  is  shed — the  blood  being 
the  ground  of  peace  and  the  basis  of  communion. 
But  no  sooner  is  the  blood  shed  than  God  and  the 
worshipers  dwell  together  in  happy  communion. 

Some  interesting  features  are  brought  out  in  the 
law  of  the  peace-offering. 

It  must  be  eaten  the  same  day  that  the  blood  was 


OFFERINGS.  147 

shed,  showing  how  close  is  the  connection  between 
communion  and  the  blood. 

The  person  who  should  eat  of  the  peace-offering 
while  ceremonially  unclean,  was  to  be  cut  off.  As 
this  great  lesson  is  elaborated  in  the  chapter  on 
"  Feet  Washing,"  we  pass  it  by  here. 

The  Latin  "communion,"  and  the  old  Anglo- 
Saxon  ' i  fellowship, ' '  both  translate  the  Greek 
zpevatvia  (koinoonid],  and  have  the  same  idea  of 
something  in  common.  But  what  is  it  we  feed 
upon  in  common,  or  in  communion  with  God? 
Surely  not  the  sin  bearing.  It  can  only  be  in  his 
delight  in  the  result  of  the  completed  work  of 
Christ.  Here  we  have  communion  and  peace,  and 
here  only  do  we  find  abiding  peace.  When  a 
Christian  is  constantly  looking  at  his  sins,  continu- 
ally asking  for  a  fresh  application  of  the  blood  to 
be  made,  he  is  on  Jewish  ground  and  fails  to  appre- 
ciate the  perfection  of  Christ's  work.  The  perfect 
cleansing  (Heb.  x.),  the  "  no  condemnation  "  (Rom. 
viii.),  have  never  been  seen,  so  that  God's  thought 
has  never  been  shared  in  communion. 

It  is  a  blessed  thought  that  while  the  head  may 
be  wrong,  having  the  old  Jewish  thought  of  a  sacri- 
fice to  be  repeated  with  every  sin,  the  heart  often 
gives  instinctively  a  fuller  value  to  Christ's  work, 
so  bringing  practically  into  communion,  and  the 
blessed  enjoyment  of  the  peace-offering. 

SECTION  III.  —  The  Sin-Offering. 

We  come  now  to  an  examination  of  the  offerings 
that  give  us  the  death  of  Christ  from  a  stand-point 


148  ATONEMENT. 

where  they  are  not  u  sweet  savor  "  offerings.  The 
sweet  savor  offerings  represent  the  delight  of  his 
love  in  the  finished  work  of  Christ;  the  sin  and 
trespass  offerings  the  display  of  his  holiness  in 
the  judgment  of  sin,  but  from  two  different 
directions. 

It  is  always  true  of  sin  that  it  separates,  but  we 
must  discriminate  the  character  of  this  separation. 

Sin  as  nature,  separates  absolutely  and  of  inevit- 
able necessity.  This  separation  lasts  as  long  as 
the  depravity. 

Sin  as  transgression,  separates  judicially.  It 
arouses  the  divine  jealousy  and  enkindles  the  divine 
wrath,  so  that  u  God  is  angry  every  day,"  has  his 
face  turned  away,  and  needs  to  be  propitiated. 
This  separation  ceases  when  propitiation  has  been 
made. 

Sin  in  the  believer  separates;  so  that  the  Father's 
face  is-  hidden,  and  communion  is  interrupted. 
God's  remedy  for  this  is  not  the  blood,  but  confes- 
sion. (See  u  Feet  Washing.") 

The  distinction  between  the  sin  and  trespass  offer- 
ings may,  therefore,  be  briefly  stated  as: 

The  sin-offering  has  respect  to  the  divine  nature. 
The  trespass-offering  to  the  demands  of  the  divine 
government.  This  is  indicated  in  the  words  used 
( l  c  sin  ' '  and  ' '  trespass  ' ' ),  and  is  pointed  out  in 
what  is  said  of  each.  One  represents  Christ  as  pro- 
pitiating God,  the  other  as  making  restitution. 

The  features  special  to  the  sin-offering  are : 

First.  The  blood  of  the  sin-offering  wras  sprinkled 
seven  times  before  "the  veil  of  the  sanctuary r." 


OFFERINGS.  149 

The  veil  hanging  between  the  Holy  and  the  Holiest 
told,  in  type,  that  God  was  not  propitiated,  that 
God  was  "angry  every  day/'  The  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  proclaimed  the  only  ground  upon  which 
we  can  come  into  the  presence  of  God. 

So,  now,  when  the  veil  has  been  rent,  when  God 
has  been  propitiated,  when  all  barriers  have  been 
swept  away,  it  is  on  the  ground  of  the  blood  alone 
that  we  come  into  the  holiest. 

"  Having  therefore,  brethren,  boldness  to  enter 
into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new 
and  living  way,  which  he  hath  consecrated  for  us." 
— Heb.  x.  19,  20. 

This  last  is  literally  "newly  slain"  (a/H&cf>aroc, 
prosphatos\  or  as  it  might  be  rendered — 

( '  By  the  blood  of  Jesus,  the  new  and  living 
way. '  * 

It  is  the  blood  that  brings  us  nigh.  It  was  be- 
cause God's  claims  had  been  met,  that  the  veil  was 
rent;  so  in  the  sin-offering  we  find  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  before  the  veil. 

Second.  In  the  sin-offering  the  body  was  con- 
sumed, or  burnt  outside  the  camp;  and  that  not 
upon  an  altar,  but  upon  the  ground.  All  indicates 
truth  of  great  importance.  "The  altar  sanctifies 
the  gift, ' '  but  the  altar  belongs  to  the  burnt-offer- 
ing, and  not  the  sin-offering.  The  divinity  gave  to 
the  completed  work  its  value.  The  absence  of  the 
altar  in  the  burning  of  the  sin-offering  shows  that 
the  idea  of  infinite  suffering  has  no  place  in  the 
Bible  type. 


150  ATONEMENT. 

The  offering  was  the  burning  of  the  body,  or  a 
part  of  it;  not  the  presentation  of  the  blood,  which 
is  fatal  to  Bushnell's  theory  of  sacrifice. 

"The  priest  shall  burn  all  on  the  altar,  to  be  a 
burnt  sacrifice,  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet 
savor  unto  the  Lord." — Lev.  i.  9. 

In  the  meat-offering  there  was  no  blood,  yet  it 
was  an  offering  made  by  fire.  The  burning  of  the 
sin-offering,  on  the  ground;  outside  the  camp,  is, 
therefore,  deeply  interesting. 

Divinity  can  not  be  linked  with  sin,  but  connects 
itself  with  the  person.  No  altar  for  the  sin-offering 
exhibits  the  holiness  of  God  and  the  demerit  of 
sin. 

The  place  is  also  suggestive — "outside  the 
camp."  It  was  the  place  where  the  leper  was  ban- 
ished, where  the  scape-goat  was  led,  and  tells 
vividly,  in  type,  the  place  that  Jesus  must  take  in 
order  to  atonement. 

"For  the  bodies  of  those  beasts  whose  blood  is 
brought  into  the  sanctuary  by  the  high -priest  for  sin 
are  burned  without  the  camp.  Wherefore  Jesus 
also,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  people  with  his 
own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate." 

Third.  The  blood  of  the  sin-offering  was  the  only 
blood  carried  into  the  holy  of  holies.  The  bodies 
burnt  ' l  without  the  camp  ' '  were  of  ( '  those  beasts 
whose  blood  is  brought  into  the  sanctuary." 

Before  leaving  the  sin-offering,  we  refer  to  the 
laying  on  of  hands  once  more.  This  was  always  a 
sign  of  identity;  but  very  different  the  thought  in 


OFFERINGS.  151 

the  sin  and  burnt  offerings.  The  burnt- offering 
gave  to  the  offerer  all  the  merit  the  offering  pos- 
sessed; in  the  sin-offering,  the  offering  was  looked 
upon  and  treated  according  to  what  the  offerer  was. 
Thus  the  offering  dealt  with  according  to  the  de- 
merit of  the  offerer,  burnt  without  the  camp,  shows 
what  Christ  was  made  for  us,  not  what  he  is  in 
himself.  For  this  reason  there  was  no  flaying,  no 
' '  cutting  into  his  pieces, ' '  in  the  sin-offering. 

SECTION  V.  —  The  Trespass-Offering. 

The  great  truth  of  the  trespass-offering  is  that  of 
restitution.  It  is  the  governmental  side  of  the 
cross.  A  partial  view,  but  not  a  complete  one. 

Depravity  separating  from  God,  so  that  the 
' '  outer  darkness ' '  is  the  necessary  portion  of  the 
sinner,  carries  with  it  the  thought  that  sin,  as 
transgression,  has  this  same  separating  character; 
and  as  transgression  merits,  and  will  receive,  the 
punishment  that  God's  holiness  demands.  This 
is  seen  in  the  sin-offering.  But  in  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked,  the  many  or  the  few  stripes  pre- 
sent the  governmental  awards  of  the  great  white 
throne. 

Restitution  is  the  great  thought;  and  this  has  to 
be  estimated  by  the  priest  in  silver,  the  ram  of  the 
offering  being  itself  a  part  of  the  repayment.  But 
in  every  case  the  one  fifth  more  has  to  be  added. 
Christ's  work  goes  beyond  the  restoration  of  what 
Adam  forfeited,  God  and  man  alike  being  gainers 
by  it.  God's  government  receives  a  glory  from  the 
work  of  Christ  that  far  outweighs  the  dishonor  done 


152  ATONEMENT. 

to  it  by  man's  sin  and  rebellion;  while  man,  whose 
sin  forfeited  an  earthly  paradise,  receives  the  glory 
and  the  blessedness  of  heaven. 

The  trespass-offerings  were  of  two  kinds;  for 
trespass  against  God  and  man.  If  it  was  against 
God,  the  offering  must  first  be  made,  then  restitu- 
tion. If  against  man,  restitution  first. 

' '  First  go  and  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  then 
come  and  offer  thy  gift. ' y 

Speaking  of  restitution  from  its  manward  outlook, 
one  writer  presents  an  almost  forgotten  truth,  and 
yet  one  that  ought  to  be  taught  everywhere.  He 
says : 

' '  Man,  as  well  as  God,  is  a  positive  gainer  by  the 
cross.  The  believer  can  say,  as  he  gazes  upon  that 
cross,  Well,  it  matters  not  how  I  have  been  wronged 
— how  I  have  been  transgressed  against — how  I 
have  been  deceived — what  wrongs  have  been  done 
me — I  am  a  gainer  by  the  cross.  I  have  not  merely 
received  back  all  that  was  lost,  but  much  more  be- 
sides. 

"Thus,  whether  we  think  of  the  injured  or  the  in- 
jurer,  in  any  given  case,  we  are  equally  struck  with 
the  glorious  triumph  of  redemption,  and  the  mighty 
practical  results  which  flow  from  that  gospel  which 
fills  the  soul  with  the  happy  assurance  that  '  all 
trespasses'  are  'forgiven,'  and  that  the  root  from 
whence  those  trespasses  have  sprung,  has  been 
judged.  '  The  gospel  of  the  glory  of  the  blessed 
God '  is  that  which  alone  can  send  forth  a  man  into 
the  midst  of  a  scene  which  has  been  a  witness  to 
his  sins,  his  trespasses,  and  his  injurious  ways — can 
send  him  back  to  all  who  in  anywise  have  been  suf- 
ferers by  his  evil  doings,  furnished  with  grace,  not 


OFFERINGS.  153 

only  to  repair  the  wrongs,  but  far  more,  to  allow 
the  full  tide  of  practical  benevolence  to  flow  forth 
in  all  his  ways — yea,  to  love  his  enemies,  to  do  good 
to  them  that  hate  him,  and  to  pray  for  them  that 
despitefully  use  him  and  persecute  him.  Such  is 
the  precious  grace  of  God  that  acts  in  connection 
with  our  great  Trespass-offering!  Such  are  its  rich, 
rare,  and  refreshing  fruits! 

' '  What  a  triumphant  answer  to  the  caviler  who 
would  say,  '  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace 
may  abound  ?  '  Grace  not  merely  cuts  up  sin  by  the 
roots,  but  transforms  the  sinner  from  a  curse  into  a 
blessing,  from  a  moral  plague  into  a  channel  of  di- 
vine mercy,  from  an  emissary  of  Satan  into  a  messen- 
ger of  God,  from  a  child  of  darkness  into  a  self-deny- 
ing lover  of  God,  from  a  slave  of  vile,  selfish  lusts  into 
a  willing-hearted  servant  of  Christ,  from  a  cold, 
narrow-hearted  miser,  into  a  benevolent  minister  to 
the  need  of  his  fellow-men.  Away,  then,  with  the 
oft-repeated  taunts,  'Are  we  to  do  nothing?' 
'that  is  a  marvelously  easy  way  to  be  saved,'  'ac- 
cording to  this  gospel,  we  may  live  as  we  list.'  Let 
all  who  utter  such  language  behold  yonder  thief 
transformed  into  a  liberal  donor,  and  let  them  be 
silent  forever  (Eph.  iv.  28).  They  know  not  what 
grace  means;  they  have  never  felt  its  sanctifying 
and  elevating  influences.  They  forget  that,  while 
the  blood  of  the  trespass- offer  ing  cleanses  the  con- 
science, the  law  of  that  offering  sends  the  trespasser 
back  to  the  one  he  has  wronged,  with  the  '  princi- 
pal '  and  the  '  fifth  '  in  his  hand.  Noble  testimony 
this,  both  to  the  grace  and  righteousness  of  the  God 
of  Israel!  Beautiful  exhibition  of  the  results  of 
that  marvelous  scheme  of  redemption,  whereby  the 
injurer  is  forgiven,  and  the  injured  becomes  an 
actual  gainer!  If  the  conscience  has  been  set  to 
rights,  by  the  blood  of  the  cross,  in  reference  to  the 
claims  of  God,  the  conduct  must  be  set  to  rights,  by 


154  ATONEMENT. 

the  holiness  of  the  cross,  in  reference  to  the  claims  of 
practical  righteousness.  These  things  must  never 
be  separated;  God  has  joined  them  together,  and 
let  not  man  put  them  asunder.  The  hallowed  union 
will  never  be  dissolved  by  any  mind  which  is  gov- 
erned by  pure  gospel  morality.  Alas!  it  is  easy  to 
profess  the  principles  of  grace,  while  the  practice 
arid  power  thereof  are  completely  denied;  it  is  easy 
to  talk  of  resting  in  the  blood  of  the  Trespass-offer- 
ing, while  the  *  principal '  and  the  '  fifth '  are  not 
forthcoming. ' ' 

How  grand  in  its  different  lights  is  the  govern- 
mental aspect  of  the  cross,  when  compared  with 
the  u  governmental  theories"  of  men. 

Before  we  close  this  chapter  on  the  offerings,  we 
will  point  out  the  offerings  as  they  are  presented  in 
the  Psalms.  The  four  principal  Messianic  Psalms 
answer  to  the  four  offerings. 

First.    The  sin-offering. — Psalm  xxii. 

In  the  first  verse  we  have  the  key  to  this  psalm, 
in  the  language  used  by  Christ  on  the  cross: 

"  Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  " 

The  burden  of  the  psalm  is  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  suffering  that  this  cry  indicates.  Speaking 
prophetically,  the  psalm  shows  that  great  as  were 
the  sufferings  Christ  endured  at  the  hands  of  men, 
others  had  suffered  in  the  same  way.  But  when 
they  had  trusted  in  God,  he  had  never  forsaken 
them,  and  deliverance  had  come. 

In  this  "Psalm  of  atonement,"  this  is  the  great 
feature — the  Righteous  One  forsaken  of  God. 


OFFERINGS.  155 

' '  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? 
far  from  helping  me,  from  the  words  of  my  roaring  ? 
O  my  God,  I  cry  in  the  daytime,  and  thou  hearest 
not,  and  in  the  night  season,  and  am  not  silent! " 

This  being  forsaken  was  so  different  from  any 
thing  that  had  been  experienced  by  a  righteous  man 
before,  that  it  is  pointed  out  as  thus  distinguished. 

"Our  fathers  trusted  in  thee;  they  trusted,  and 
thou  didst  deliver  them;  they  looked  unto  thee, 
and  were  delivered ;  they  trusted  in  thee,  and  were 
not  confounded.  But  /am  a  worm  and  no  man." 

In  the  sinlessness  of  his  character,  this  hiding  of 
the  Father's  face  meant  far  more  to  Christ  than  to 
any  other.  We  can  never  fathom  it  or  measure  the 
intensity  of  the  cry  as  he  asks,  u  Why  hast  thou 
forsaken  Me?" 

This  special  hiding  of  the  Father's  face,  a  thing 
so  unique  in  his  dealings  with  the  righteous,  points 
to  the  vicarious  character  of  the  sufferings  he  en- 
dured as  our  great  sin-offering. 

For  this  reason,  when  the  work  is  done,  we  find 
him  at  once  surrounded  by  the  "brethren." 

Second.    The  burnt-offering. — Psalm  xl. 

The  leading  thought  of  this  psalm  is  expressed 
in  the  words : 

"  IvO  I  come  to  do  thy  will." 

And  the  fact  is  set  forth  that  by  doing  this  will, 
the  types  and  shadows — the  sacrifices  of  Judaism — 
come  to  an  end.  It  is  Christ  as  burnt- offering  that 
we  see  in  every  line  of  this  psalm.  Christ  doing 


156  ATONEMENT. 

the  Father's  will,  suffering,  getting  into  the  horri- 
ble pit,  delivered  and  made  to  rejoice. 

Third.    The  trespass-offering. — Psalm  Ixix. 

The  whole  psalm  speaks  of  the  suffering  of 
Christ  but  in  their  governmental  aspect.  "Sin," 
in  verse  five,  should  be  "trespasses;"  while  the 
language  in  verse  four  : 

"  I  restored  that  which  I  took  not  away," 
points  to  his  work  of  restitution;  and  this  restitu- 
tion made  for  others,  and  not  for  himself. 

Fourth.    The  peace-offering. — Psalm  cii. 

Here,  the  feature  connected  with  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  that  is  specially  pointed  out,  is  their  re- 
sult as  bringing  a  people  into  fellowship  with  him- 
self, a  congregation  to  worship  him  at  Jerusalem. 

We  have  not  given  any  full,  elaborate  exposition 
of  these  psalms,  designing  only  to  point  out  their 
distinctive  features.  Our  readers  must  open  up  this 
vein  of  truth  for  themselves. 

If  we  read  these  psalms  in  the  light  of  the  offer- 
ings, we  shall  find  a  beauty  that  we  otherwise  would 
overlook.  From  the  psalms  themselves  we  get 
further  light  on  the  offering.  Thus  God's  word 
becomes  resplendent  in  the  light  of  its  own  truth, 
its  glory  being  the  cross,  and  that  cross  a  vicarious 
sacrifice.  As  biirnt-offering,  peace-offering,  sin- 
offering,  trespass-offering,  he  meets  the  needs  of 
men  and  glorifies  God,  and  yet  his  work  is  one. 

"  By  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them 
that  are  sanctified." — Heb.  x.  14. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
THE  BLOOD. 

Before  we  leave  the  subject  of  sacrifice,  we  may 
properly  examine  some  offerings  that  give  us  further 
light. 

SECTION  I. — AbeV s  Sacrifice. 

While  we  believe  that  Adam  offered  a  sacrifice  in 
the  garden,  as  indicated  by  the  coat  of  skins,  which 
could  only  have  been  provided  by  the  shedding  of 
the  blood  of  a  victim,  Abel's  is  the  first  recorded 
sacrifice.  We  may,  therefore,  expect  that  the  lead- 
ing features  will  be  forcibly  brought  out,  especially 
in  the  light  of  the  New  Testament.  The  record  is : 

' '  In  process  of  time  it  came  to  pass,  that  Cain 
brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering  to 
the  Lord. 

And  Abel,  he  also  brought  of  the  firstling  of  his 
flock  and  of  the  fat  thereof.  And  the  Lord  had  re- 
spect unto  Abel  and  to  his  offering." — Gen.  iv.  4,  5. 

Both  Cain  and  Abel  were  born  after  the  expulsion 
from  Eden.  Both  were  the  children  of  fallen  Adam, 
both  were  depraved,  and  both  needed  a  savior. 
There  was  '  cno  difference' '  as  to  this.  It  was  entirely 
in  the  sacrifice  they  offered  that  they  were  so  widely 
apart,  that  one  was  accepted  and  the  other  rejected. 


158  ATONEMENT. 

u  By  faith  Abel  offered  a  more  excellent  sacrifice 
than  Cain." 

What  was  this  difference?  Cain,  we  are  told, 
"brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  " — that  ground 
that  God  had  cursed.  He  had  been  taught,  equally 
with  Abel,  of  the  evil  of  sin  and  the  consequent 
exposure  to  death  and  "  after  death  the  judgment." 
No  doubt  he  had  heard  of  the  glorious  promise  of 
a  Savior  and  of  his  father's  faith  in  that  promise, 
but  in  the  pride  of  his  heart  he  fails  to  believe; 
fails  to  take  the  sinner's  place,  and  dares,  an  unfor- 
given  sinner,  to  bring  the  fruit  of  his  hands  as  an 
offering  to  the  Lord.  He  manifests  no  faith  in  the 
Savior  and  comes  with  an  unbloody  sacrifice, 
bringing  life,  not  death ;  forgetting,  or  disbelieving, 
that 

"Without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission." 

Abel  offers,  by  faith,  a  more  excellent  sacrifice. 
He  takes  the  place  of  a  sinner  and  claims  the  prom- 
ise of  a  Savior,  bringing  the  blood  of  a  victim;  and 
on  the  ground  of  that  blood,  he  is  accepted  of  God. 
God  testifying,  or  bearing  witness,  "of  his  gifts," 
as  the  ground  of  his  being  righteous. 

God's  answer  to  Cain  points  this  out  as  the 
ground  of  Abel's  acceptance. 

"If  thou  doestwell" — this  is  rendered  in  the 
Septuagint  by  opdcoz  TtpoGzvs-fQr^  (prthoos  proseneg- 
kees\  "if  thou  offer  correctly  shalt  thou  not  be  ac- 
cepted." On  the  other  hand,  "if  thou  doest  not 
well,  a  sin-offering  lieth  at  the  door."  Where  there 
is  sin,  God  has  made  provision  for  the  acceptance 


THE  BLOOD.  159 

of  the  offerer — a  sin-offering  waits  at  the  door.  If, 
therefore,  Cain  was  not  accepted,  it  was  because  of 
his  failure  to  avail  himself  of  this  provision.  The 
blood  of  Abel's  sacrifice  was  accepted  for  him,  but 
we  look  to — 

' '  The  blood  of  sprinkling  that  speaketh  better 
things  than  that  of  Abel." 

SECTION  II. — The  Offering  of  Isaac. 

The  offering  of  Isaac  by  Abraham,  while  a  trial 
of  Abraham's  faith,  evidently  represents  Isaac  as  a 
type  of  Christ.  A  careful  examination  of  the  alle- 
gory, in  Galatians,  and  of  the  eleventh  chapter  of 
Hebrews,  will  show  this.  Isaac,  "the  child  of 
promise,"  offered  by  Abraham,  points  on  to  the 
promised  ' '  seed, ' '  and,  as  a  type,  shows  features 
not  found  elsewhere. 

First.  The  command  to  offer  Isaac  was  the  com- 
mand for  a  human  sacrifice.  Of  course  God  never 
intended  that  Isaac  should  die,  having  provided  a 
ram  as  a  substitute;  but  it  was  a  lifting,  in  some 
measure,  of  the  veil,  showing  what  the  true  thought 
of  sacrifice  is — a  man  dying  in  the  place  of  man. 
It  is  the  seed  of  the  woman  with  bruised  heel  that 
we  here  catch  a  glimpse  of. 

Second.   The  language  used  points  on  to  Christ : 
'  Take  now  thy  son,  thy  only  begotten  son." 

Third.  This  leads  to  still  another  thought,  that 
which  is  its  great  typical  lesson — that  this  is  the 
only  offering  where  God's  love  in  the  gift  of  his 
Son  is  shown:  "take  now  thy  son  " — this  son  of 
thy  love,  the  child  around  whom  your  affection 


160  ATONEMENT. 

clings — take  him,  and  offer  him  upon  the  altar.  In 
the  ready,  unmurmuring  response  of  Abraham,  we 
have  a  type  of  God's  love  in  the  gift  of  his  Son. 

' '  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son." 

This  aspect  of  sacrifice  is  continually  emphasized 
in  the  Bible.  "  The  gift  of  God,"  who  "spared 
not ' '  his  own  Son,  but  freely  gave  him  to  die,  is 
the  theme  everywhere.  While  we  honor  the  Son 
and  sing  of  his  "dying  love,"  we  must  remember 
the  Father's  love  in  the  gift  of  that  Son.  This 
should  vivify  the  praise  and  adoration  of  his  people. 

Mark  the  words  of  Abraham  in  response  to  the 
questions  of  Isaac — "God  will  provide  a  lamb  to* 
the  burnt-offering."  As  it  was  a  "ram"  that  was 
caught  in  the  thicket,  this  evidently  looks  forward, 
prophetically,  to  that  Lamb  that  in  the  ' '  fullness 
of  time"  God  was  to  provide  for  the  sins  of  the 
people.  "God  will  provide."  It  is  not  man's  pro- 
vision, but  God's;  not  what  man  does  for  himself, 
but  what  God  does  for  him,  by  the  gift  of  his  Son. 

Fourth.  The  perfect  submission  of  Isaac  to  the 
will  of  his  Father,  even  permitting  himself  to  be 
bound  to  the  altar — "obedient  unto  death."  How 
it  all  points  to  Christ!  The  Father's  love  in  giving 
his  Son,  and  the  perfect  obedience  of  that  Son,  are 
both  illustrated  in  the  type. 

SECTION  III. — The  Blood. 

As  all  types  meet  in  the  person  of  Christ,  all  sac- 
rifices point  to  him,  each  bringing  into  view  some 
new  aspect  of  the  cross.  But  in  every  sacrifice  we 


THE  BLOOD.  161 

have  prominence  given  to  the  blood.  The  blood 
meets  us  at  every  stage  of  the  world's  history,  and 
the  importance  of  the  blood  is  insisted  on  in  every 
dispensation. 

"  For  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood:  and  I 
have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  an 
atonement  for  your  souls :  for  it  is  the  blood  that 
maketh  an  atonement  for  the  soul." — L,ev.  xvii.  n. 

"In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins." — Eph.  i.  7;  Col. 
i.  14. 

"Without  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission." — 
Heb.  ix.  22. 

"The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  cleanseth 
us  from  all  sin." — i  John  i.  7. 

"And  have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." — Rev.  vii.  14. 

Such  verses  might  be  multiplied;  showing  that 
everywhere  the  Old  Testament  declares  that  the 
blood  makes  atonement,  while  the  New  proclaims 
no  remission  without  the  blood. 

What  does  the  blood  mean  ?  What  was  accom- 
plished by  it  ? 

The  popular  method  of  dealing  with  such  texts 
as- the  above,  by  those  who  reject  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment, is  to  speak  of  .them  as  figurative.  This  is 
followed  by  the  assumption  that  if  they  are  figura- 
tive, they  may  be  interpreted  in  any  way  the  fancy, 
or  creed,  of  the  interpreter  may  suggest. 

The  statement  that  they  are  figurative  is  too 
12 


162  ATONEMENT. 

sweeping  and  fails  to  discriminate  between  what  is 
literal,  figurative,  and  spiritual.  The  expression 
"  shedding  of  blood  "  is  figurative  for  the  taking  of 
the  life.  The  life  being  "in  the  blood,"  when  the 
blood  is  "shed,"  or  "poured  out,"  the  life  is  taken, 
and  the  victim  dies.  The  uniform  Bible  use  of  the 
expression  is  to  point  out  -iteral  death. 

"Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood  by  man  shall  his 
blood  be  shed." — Gen.  ix.  6. 

This  means,  as  all  agree,  the  killing  of  a  man, 
and  indicates  what  the  expression  means  in  the 
Bible  : 

"The  blood  is  the  life."— Deut.  xii.  2.3. 

The  shedding  of  the  blood  was  the  taking  of  the 
life;  and  where  life  had  been  taken,  the  guilt  of 
ihe  blood  was  said  to  rest. 

"At  the  hand  of  every  man's  brother  will  I  re- 
quire the  life  of  man." — Gen.  ix.  5. 

"  His  blood  will  I  require." — Ezek.  iii.  18. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  many  passages  sim- 
ilar to  these,  speaking  of  the  blood  being  required, 
the  blood  being  upon  their  heads,  the  land  being 
cleansed  of  the  blood,  washing  the  hands  of  the 
blood,  etc.,  show  that  blood-shedding  and  life-tak- 
ing are  synonymous.  Blood-shedding  never  means 
any  thing  else  in  the  Bible.  Until  Scripture  au- 
thority is  given  for  any  other  meaning,  sound  in- 
terpretation leads  to  the  acceptance  of  that  which 
is  expressed.  This  rests  upon  a  Bible  basis,  all 
others  upon  the  imaginations  of  men. 


THE  BLOOD.  163 

In  the  victims  offered  in  sacrifice,  the  blood  shed- 
ding was  always  the  taking  of  the  life,  there  being 
no  example  of  blood  shedding  without  it.  As 
death — corporeal  death  — was  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  we  see  that  the  death  of  the  victim  was  in  the 
place  of  the  person  who  made  the  sacrifice,  it  being 
"accepted  for  him."  This  was  literally,  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  life  of  the  victim  for  the  forfeited 
life  of  the  offerer.  In  the  old  Mosaic  sacrifice,  the 
death  of  the  victim  never  meant  more  than  this; 
for, 

' '  It  was  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
of  goats  should  take  away  sins." — Heb.  x.  4. 

Christ's  death,  while  literal,  and,  as  such,  a  meet- 
ing of  the  penalty  of  the  law,  went  beyond  this; 
and  this  deeper  meaning  in  the  antitype  is  embodied 
in  language  taken  from  the  type.  But  the  one 
represented  the  other.  If  the  one  was  vicarious, 
the  other  must  be.  The  language  would  be  mis- 
leading when  used  of  Christ  if  it  were  not.  If  the 
Jewish  sacrifice  was  a  vicarious  meeting  of  the 
claims  of  law,  then  Christ's  death  is  a  meeting  of 
the  demands  of  God  in  our  stead.  The  blood  of 
the  victim  on  the  gold  of  the  mercy-seat  told  of 
law  satisfied,  so  that  mercy  came  to  men.  Log- 
ically, the  blood  of  Jesus  does  the  same,  on  a  higher, 
broader  scale. 

"  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sancti- 
fieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ;  how  much  more 
shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal 


164  ATONEMENT. 

Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge 
your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living 
God."—  Heb.  ix.  13,  14. 

This  is  the  deep  spiritual  meaning  of  the  blood. 
The  advocates  of  the  Moral  Influence  theory,  quot- 
ing Lev.  xvii.  n — u  the  life  is  in  the  blood  "  —hold 
that  as  the  blood  is  the  "bearer  of  life,"  the  blood 
being  brought  to  the  mercy-seat  simply  means  that 
the  life  of  the  offerer  is  dedicated  to  God.  We  ob- 
ject to  this — 

First.  While  it  was  the  offerer  who  killed  the 
victim,  it  was  the  priest  that  put  the  blood  on  the 
horns  of  the  altar,  or  wherever  else  it  was  placed. 
On  the  Day  of  Atonement  it  was  the  high-priest  who 
killed  the  goat  and  carried  its  blood  into  the  holiest. 
All  this  is  out  of  harmony  with  any  other  than  a 
vicarious  death.  The  man  offers  the  animal  which 
is  accepted  for  him,  and  after  it  is  accepted — after, 
not  before — he  kills  it,  and  the  priest  disposes  of  the 
blood. 

Second.  The  uniform  Bible  use  forces  us  to  give 
to  the  blood  shedding  the  meaning  of  life  taking, 
the  blood  being  the  evidence — the  memorial — that 
death  had  been  inflicted. 

Third.  The  blood  makes  atonement.  Atonement 
is  "to  cover"  over,  this  being  always  done  when 
sin  was  in  question,  by  an  expiation.  The  theory 
denies  that  atonement  "atones"  for  sin,  giving  to 
the  word  a  meaning  (at-one-ment)  that  is  not  war- 
ranted by  Greek  or  Hebrew  usage.  Words  in  the 
Bible  are  always  used  in  the  sense  they  had  when 


THE  BLOOD.  165 

the  writers  lived.  If  there  are  any  exceptions  to 
this  rule,  the  fuller  meaning  or  new  application  will 
always  be  indicated  by  the  context.  Even  then 
the  old  meaning  is  the  essential  basis  of  the  new 
application.  Such  new  meanings  are  never  to  be 
accepted  but  on  the  clearest  evidence.  In  the 
absence  of  such  evidence,  it  is  an  assumption  to 
give  any  new  meaning.  It  is  beyond  contro- 
versy that  the  Hebrew  word  for  atonement  carried 
with  it  the  idea  of  expiation,  and  that  it  was  so 
used  by  the  Jews.  So  with  the  Greek  word  for 
propitiation.  Not  one  quotation  can  be  given  from 
either  Greek  or  Jewish  writers,  where  the  words  are 
used  in  connection  with  sin,  in  any  other  sense. 
All  lexicons  so  define  the  words.  The  church  has 
always  so  understood  them.  If,  then,  we  take 
atonement  in  its  true  sense,  the  theory  denies  that 
the  blood  makes  atonement;  which  is  the  very  thing 
the  Bible  affirms. 

Oehler,  while  holding  a  vicarious  atonement, 
presents  a  theory  inconsistent  with  it.  It  is  indi- 
cated in  the  following  quotation  : 

"  The  meaning  of  this  use  of  the  blood  is  given 
in  Lev.  xvii.  n,  where  the  prohibition  to  use 
blood  is  based  on  the  following  declaration :  '.For 
the  soul  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and  I  have 
given  it  to  you  on  the  altar  to  atone  for  (properly  to 

cover)  your  souls  (D^b'Sr^  "IS)?1?  );  for  the 
blood  expiates  through  the  soul  (^$35), — that 
is,  by  means  of,  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the  soul 
is  in  it.  ,  Now  in  ivhat  sense  is  the  soul  of 


i66  ATONEMENT. 

the  animal  presented  in  the  blood  to  serve  in  the 
sacrifice  as  a  covering  for  the  soul  of  man  ?  Gener- 
ally speaking,  by  marts  placing  the  soul  of  the  pure, 
innocent  sacrificial  animal  betiveen  himself  and  God, 
because  he  is  unable  to  approach  God  immediately 
on  account  of  his  sinfulness  and  impurity  .... 
it  is  not  the  act  of  slaughter  by  which  the  guilt  is 
carried  away,  but  the  act  of  presenting  the  blood  on 
the  altar  that  is  designated  as  the  act  of  atone- 
ment" 

First.  The  translation,  "the  soul  of  the  flesh  is 
in  the  blood,"  is  not  given  either  in  the  Authorized 
or  Revised  Scriptures,  nor  do  we  regard  it  as  de- 
fensible here.  The  Hebrew  " nephesh,"  like  the 
Greek  "psuchee,"  is  used  with  many  meanings  in 
the  Bible.  They  both  express  a  twofold  sense  of 
the  word  "life,"  being  properly  translated  both 
"soul"  and  "life."  Life  being,  in  the  Bible,  a 
derived  meaning  from  that  of  "soul."  Other 
senses  of  the  word  "life"  are  expressed  by  other 
words. 

Nephesh  denotes  potential  life  as  when  we  say, 
"there  is  life  in  him;"  and  phenomenal  life,  as 
when  we  say,  "he  is  full  of  life."  In  other  words, 
the  soul — an  immaterial  entity — is  the  potential  life 
of  the  body.  It  is  the  unseen,  hidden  energy,  that 
is  the  cause  of  the  motion  of  the  machine.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  motion  of  the  machine — the  activ- 
ities of  the  body — are  but  the  phenomenal  soul. 
In  the  first  of  these  meanings,  "soul"  is  the  true 
translation,  in  the  last  "  life."  The  blood  being  the 
vehicle  of  all  vital  action,  it  is  evidently  in  the  last 
sense  that  nephesh  is  used;  and  life,  not  soul,  is  its 


THE  BLOOD.  167 

appropriate  translation.  This  is  shown  by  compar- 
ing with  parallel  texts. 

"  For  the  life  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof.''— 
Lev.  xvii.  14. 

"The  blood  is  the  life."— Deut.  xii.  23. 

It  is  "nephesh"  in  both  these  texts,  but  it 
would  hardly  do  to  translate  it  "soul"  here,  as  that 
would  make  the  blood  to  be  the  soul — that  would  be 
the  grossest  materialism.  The  first  of  these  quota- 
tions being  in  the  same  connection  fixes  the  trans- 
lation life  as  the  true  one. 

Second.  It  is  inconceivable  how  the  soul  of  a 
pure  animal  can  be  put  between  a  sinner  and  God. 
What  meaning  is  to  be  attached  to  it  ? 

Third.  It  is  the  blood  and  not  the  soul,  or  life, 
that  makes  atonement. 

Fourth.  In  opposition  to  Oehler,  we  believe  that 
it  was  the  blood  shedding,  or  rather  what  was  ac- 
complished by  it,  that  made  atonement.  The  vic- 
tim was  brought  as  an  offering  and  presented  to 
God,  who  accepted  it  for  him  to  make  atonement. 
After  this  presentation  and  acceptance,  the  victim 
was  slain  and  the  priest  applied  the  blood.  As  to 
the  presentation  of  the  blood  to  God,  this  was 
only  done  in  the  sin-offering  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment. 

The  blood  makes  atonement;  and  after  the  death 
of  the  victim,  the  blood  was  the  memorial  of  an 
accomplished  'sacrifice. 

The  blood  belonged  to  God,  and  not  to  man; 
hence  he  says: 


i68  ATONEMENT. 

' '  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make 
an  atonement  for  your  souls." 

It  was  there  as  God's  gift  to  men,  telling  to  men 
of  propitiation  and  the  Gift  that  saves. 

*  In  sacrifice  the  blood  was  never  put  upon  the 
people.  In  the  consecration  of  the  priest,  the  blood 
was  put  on  the  ear,  thumb,  and  great  toe;  but  this, 
while  beautiful  and  suggestive,  was  consecration, 
not  atonement. 

The  only  exception  was  in  the  case  of  the  mak- 
ing of  the  covenant,  when  we  read : 

' '  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  it  on  the 
people,  and  said,  Behold  the  blood  of  the  cov- 
enant." 

Moses  and  the  seventy  elders  were  called  into  the 
mount,  but  it  was  to  worship  ' '  afar  off; ' '  for, 

u  They  shall  not  come  nigh." 

God,  * '  angry  every  day, '  *  was  still  separated  from 
the  people.  Nowhere  under  law  do  we  find  the 
people  brought  nigh.  In  entering  into  a  covenant 
with  the  people,  we  find  that  it  is  dedicated  with 
blood. 

Death  being  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  it 
was  only  on  the  ground  of  its  claims  being  met  and 
satisfied,  that  the  covenant  relation  could  be  estab- 
lished or  maintained.  Under  law,  without  law,  or 
under  grace,  it  is  always  the  same — the  blood  is  the 
only  ground  of  blessing.  Without  the  blood  is  no 
remission,  and  without  remission  there  is  no  grace, 
no  blessing. 

With  the  glory  of  God  on  the  mount  as  a  "  con- 


THE  BLOOD.  169 

sumhig  fire,"  and  sin  and  defilement  in  the  camp, 
there  could  be  no  communion,  no  covenant,  until 
the  altar  is  erected,  the  blood  shed,  and  atonement 
made.  The  blood  sprinkled  upon  the  people  tells 
that  they  are  the  Lord's  solely  on  the  ground  of 
the  blood,  and  not  personal  merit. 


CHAPTER  X. 

REDEMPTION. 

We  come  now  to  a  very  important  theme,  one 
that  presents  the  work  of  Christ  from  another  stand- 
point, but  in  harmony  with  the  distinctions  we 
have  insisted  upon. 

Redemption  is  of  a  twofold  character,  correspond- 
ing, as  God's  provision  of  grace,  to  sin  as  trans- 
gression, and  as  depravity. 

The  Old  Testament  furnishes  us  with  many  types 
of  this  twofold  redemption. 

SECTION  I.  —  The  Year  of  Jubilee. 

Among  the  Jews,  every  seventh  year  was  a  Sab- 
bath; but  when  seven  of  their  Sabbatical  periods 
had  passed,  the  fiftieth  year  was  a  jubilee,  a  special 
provision  for  redemption. 

The  year  of  jubilee  was  proclaimed  by  the  sound 
of  the  trumpet,  which  was  sounded  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  when  all  sin  had  been  expiated.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  how  closely  redemption  by  power 
is  connected  with  the  blood  shedding.  Israel's  re- 
demption from  Egypt  followed  close  upon  the  death 
of  the  Lamb  and  the  appearance  of  the  blood  upon 
the  door  posts.  The  year  of  Jubilee  is  ushered  in 
by  the  solemn  work  of  the  Day  of  Atonement. 


REDEMPTION.  171 

The  great  feature  of  the  jubilee  was: 

' '  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year,  and  pro- 
claim liberty  throughout  all  the  land  unto  all  the 
inhabitants  thereof:  it  shall  be  a  jubilee  unto  you; 
and  ye  shall  return  every  man  into  his  family. ' ' 

This  shows  the  blessing.  Every  Israelite  who 
had  sold  himself  on  account  of  poverty  became 
free,  and  every  alienated  inheritance  was  restored 
to  its  original  owners.  During  the  fifty  years  the 
slave  might  be  redeemed  by  the  payment  of  a  ran- 
som, the  provision  for  this  being  indicated  by  law. 
But  the  year  of  jubilee  set  free  without  any 
payment. 

So  with  the  land.  Being  divided  among  the  tribes 
and  sub-divided  among  the  families,  it  became  their 
perpetual  inheritance.  If,  however,  it  had  in  any 
way  passed  into  alien  possession,  provision  was 
made  for  the  redemption  by  purchase;  and  the  one 
whose  right  it  was  to  redeem  was  indicated  by  law. 
An  illustration  of  this  is  seen  in  the  case  of  Boaz. 
The  kinsman  nearer  than  he  had  to  renounce  his 
right,  before  Boaz  could  redeem  Ruth's  inheritance. 

The  jubilee  shows,  therefore,  a  twofold  redemp- 
tion— by  the  payment  of  a  price,  or  by  power. 

What  a  year!  what  blessings!  When  the  notes 
of  the  silver  trumpet  rang  out,  sweet  and  clear,  its 
echoes  penetrated  into  every  part  of  the  land  and 
gave  liberty  to  the  captive  and  untold  blessing  to 
the  people.  The  exile  returned  to  his  home,  the 
poor  and  the  struggling  entered  again  upon  their 
possessions;  the  debtor  was  freed  from  his  debts, 


172  ATONEMENT. 

the  man-slayer  could  return  home  in  peace.  The 
full  tide  of  blessing  flowed  over  the  land!  It  was 
indeed  a  year  of  jubilee! 

SECTION  II.  —  The  Goel,  or  Redeemer. 

The  idea  of  redemption  being  prominent  in  the 
Jewish  theocracy,  we  find  special  provision  for  it 
in  their  laws,  and  we  find  one  who  was  specially 
the  Redeemer.  As  to  the  meaning  : 

The  verb  7X3  (gaal)  means  primarily  u  to  re- 
deem, to  ransom;"  and  is  translated  "redeem," 
but  never  ransom,  the  Hebrew  word  for  that  being 
kopher,  indicating  that  a  ransom  is  that  which 
"covers" — satisfies — the  demand,  and  so  liberates. 

Other  words  are  used  to  express  the  idea  of  re- 
deeming, the  principal  one  being  ilH£3  (padati), 
"to  cut,  to  cut  in  two;"  hence,  to  "ransom  or  re- 
deem," "  to  set  free." 

The  difference  between  the  two  words  is  that 
padah  simply  expresses  the  idea  of  setting  free, 
whereas  gaal  carries  with  it  the  thought  of  the 
manner  in  which  this  is  done,  either  by  avenging 
or  by  repayment. 

Goel  is  the  only  word  translated  "Redeemer." 
It  is  sometimes  translated  "kinsman"  (the  word 
denoting  a  blood  relation),  and  sometimes  "avenger" 
or  "revenger."  The  Goel  was  the  kinsman,  whose 
right  it  was  to  redeem  when  occasion  demanded. 

Under  the  Mosaic  law,  when  a  man  died  without 
children,  it  became  the  duty  of  the  next  of  kin  to 
marry  the  widow,  so  as  to  raise  up  children  to  pos- 


REDEMPTION.  173 

sess  the  inheritance  of  the  dead  man,  that  it  might 
be  saved  to  the  family. 

When  property  had  been  alienated,  it  was  the 
right  of  the  next  of  kin  to  redeem  it. 

"There  is  a  kinsman  (gaal)  nearer  than  I." 

"And  the  kinsman  said,  I  can  not  redeem  it  for 
myself,  lest  I  mar  mine  own  inheritance :  redeem 
thou  my  right  to  thyself;  for  I  can  not  redeem  it." 
—Ruth  iii.  12;  iv.  6. 

Again,  when  a  murder  had  been  committed,  the 
next  of  kin  was  called  upon  to  slay  the  murderer; 
the  reason  given  being — 

"So  ye  shall  not  pollute  the  land  wherein  ye 
are  :  for  blood  it  defileth  the  land:  and  the  land  can 
not  be  cleansed  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but 
by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it." — Num.  xxxv.  33. 

The  word  "cleansed"  is  in  the  Hebrew  kapher 
(atonement).  Atonement  must  be  made  for  the 
wrong  by  the  death  of  the  man-slayer.  His  only 
safety  was  to  remain  in  the  city  of  refuge,  if  the 
killing  had  been  accidental;  and  it  was  specially 
prohibited  that  any  "satisfaction"  (kaphar)  should 
be  received  of  him  (verses  31,  32).  He  could  not 
make  atonement  himself. 

The  next  of  kin,  whose  duty  it  was  to  avenge  the 
death,  and  thus  cleanse,  or  redeem,  the  land  from 
the  curse,  was  the  Goel,  or  Redeemer. 

From  this  brief  review  it  is  seen  that  the  Re- 
deemer was  a  "kinsman,"  who  redeemed  by  paying 
a  price,  or  by  avenging.  This  brings  out  once  more 
the  idea  of  a  twofold  redemption. 


174  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  III.  —  The  firstling  of  an  Ass — Ex. 
xiii.  13. 

Under  the  Mosaic  economy  we  find  a  distinction 
made  between  clean  and  unclean  animals.  Of  course 
this  was  to  teach  some  great  spiritual  lesson.  This 
is  indicated  in  the  vision  granted  to  Peter. 

' '  And  saw  heaven  opened,  and  a  certain  vessel 
descending  unto  him,  as  it  had  been  a  great  sheet 
knit  at  the  four  corners,  and  let  down  to  the 
earth : 

"Wherein  were  all  manner  of  four-footed  beasts 
of  the  earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things 
and"  fowls  of  the  air. 

"And  there  came  a  voice  to  him,  Rise,  Peter;  kill 
and  eat. 

u  But  Peter  said,  Not  so,  L,ord;  for  I  have  never 
eaten  any  thing  that  is  common  or  unclean. 

"And  the  voice  spake  unto  him  again  the  second 
time,  What  God  hath  cleansed,  that  call  not  thou 
common." — Acts  x.  10-15. 

4 '  Ye  know  how  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a 
man  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company,  or  come  unto 
one  of  another  nation;  but  God  hath  showed  me 
that  I  should  not  call  any  man  common  or  unclean. " 
— Acts  x.  28. 

The  Jew  was  clean,  or  holy;  the  Gentile  was  un- 
clean. This  distinction  was  largely  arbitrary,  being 
based  upon  natural  birth  alone.  The  real  distinc- 
tion indicated,  is  as  between  the  saved  and  the 
lost,  the  believer  and  the  unbeliever.  (See  2  Cor. 
vi.  14-17,  etc.) 


REDEMPTION.  175 

The  ass  that  had  to  be  redeemed  was  an  unclean 
animal,  the  lamb  that  redeemed  it  was  clean.  It  was 
the  substitution  of  the  clean  lamb  in  the  place  of 
the  unclean  ass. 

But  why  did  it  need  to  be  redeemed  ? 

If  we  turn  to  the  record  we  find  that  it  is  founded 
upon  the  same  event  as  the  passover.  The  first- 
born, both  of  man  and  beast,  had  perished  among 
the  Egyptians;  but  those  of  the  Hebrews,  sheltered 
by  the  blood,  had  been  spared.  On  the  ground  of 
this,  God  claimed  all  "firstlings"  as  his. 

"And  it  shall  be  when  thy  son  asketh  thee  in  the 
time  to  come,  saying,  What  is  this?  that thou shalt 
say  unto  him,  By  strength  of  hand  the  Lord  brought 
its  out  from  Egypt,  from  the  house  of  bondage. 

"And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Pharaoh  would 
hardly  let  us  go,  that  the  Lord  slew  all  the  first- 
born of  man,  and  the  first-born  of  beast :  therefore 
I  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  all  that  openetli  the  matrix, 
being  males;  but  all  the  first-born  of  my  children  I 
redeem." — Ex.  xiii.  14,  15. 

As  the  first-born  belonged  to  the  Lord,  it  was  not 
to  do  any  work,  it  was  to  be  eaten  by  the  family 
when  sacrificed — but  only  before  the  Lord.  In  the 
case  of  the  unclean  animal,  as  it  could  not  be  sac- 
rificed, because  God  can  not  accept  what  is  unclean, 
it  must  be  redeemed,  or  slain. 

"And  every  firstling  of  an  ass  thou  shalt  redeem 
with  a  lamb;  and  if  thou  wilt  not  redeem  it,  then 
thou  shalt  break  his  neck :  and  all  the  first-born  of 
man  among  thy  children  thou  shalt  redeem." 


176  ATONEMENT. 

Here  we  clearly  have  substitution,  and  its  great 
application  pointed  out  in  the  closing  sentence. 
Man,  like  the  ass,  is  unclean,  and  must,  like  it,  be 
redeemed,  or  perish. 

How  vivid  is  this  passage!  What  more  worthless 
than  a  broken-necked  ass  ?  This  is  the  great  offense 
of  the  Bible;  it  gives  man  so  low  a  place  that  it 
humbles  his  pride.  Without  redemption,  he  will 
be  no  better  than  a  broken-necked  ass.  But  what 
is  more  exalted  than  the  L,amb?  It  is  a  Lamb  that 
is  seen  in  the  midst  of  the  throne.  All  heaven 
sings,  "Worthy  the  Lamb. "  If,  then,  by  nature, 
we  are  so  low,  by  grace  we  may  become  most  ex- 
alted. Grace  makes  the  unclean  clean,  the  worth- 
less precious,  and  raises  gulity  sinners  up  into  glory 
there  to  share  it  with  the  Lamb. 

But  it  is  only  as  a  "lamb"  is  slain  as  a  substi- 
tute. If  he  will  not  redeem  it,  its  neck  must  be 
broken. 

SECTION  IV. — Redemption  by  Purchase. 

Redemption  by  purchase  is  presented  in  many 
texts. 

"  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price." — i  Cor.  vi.  20. 

"Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  re- 
deemed with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold, 
.  .  .  .  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as 
of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot." — i 
Peter  i.  18,  19. 

The  language  here  used  links  on  to  the  Jewish 
sacrifice,  showing  the  effect  of  those  sacrifices  to  be 


REDEMPTION.  177 

our  redemption.  But  it  is  redemption  by  purchase 
that  is  so  linked.  From  what  are  we  redeemed  ? 
To  whom  was  the  price  paid  ? 

In  the  early  days  of  the  church,  there  was  a  wide- 
spread belief  that  this  price,  or  ransom,  was  paid  to 
Satan.  This  was  natural,  when  we  remember  the 
custom  of  that  day  was  to  hold  a  captive  for  ransom. 
The  right  of  the  conqueror  was  almost  universally 
recognized,  captives  even  returning  to  captivity 
when  liberated  on  parole  to  obtain  this  ransom,  and 
being  unable  to  do  so.  This  right  being  so  gener- 
ally recognized,  it  was  natural  that  Satan  should  be 
regarded  as  having  a  right  of  conquest  in  men; 
hence,  the  belief  of  many  that  the  ransom  was  paid 
to  Satan.  But  the  Bible  gives  no  countenance  to 
this  idea;  as  in  no  sense  has  the  devil  any  valid 
claim  that  God  would  recognize.  The  Bible 
never  teaches  that  we  are  redeemed  from  the 
power  of  the  devil  by  a  ransom.  It  shows  that 
we  are  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  re- 
deemed from  smy  and,  while  it  does  not  use  the 
words,  that  we  are  redeemed  from  the  power  of 
the  devil.  But  here  comes  in  the  distinction  be- 
tween redemption  by  purchase  and  power.  Re- 
demption from  the  curse  of  the  law  is  by  purchase; 
from  sin  and  the  power  of  the  devil,  by  power. 
The  first  only,  then,  is  vicarious.  The  others,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  can  not  be. 

* '  To  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that 
we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." — Gal.  iv.  5. 

' '  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us." — Gal.  iii.  13. 
13 


178  ATONEMENT. 

Here  the  manner  of  the  redemption  is  pointed 
out — "  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  It  was  God 
who  pronounced  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  he  will 
execute  it.  As  the  moral  governor  of  the  universe, 
he  will  enforce  the  sanctions  of  his  law,  and  will 
"  in  no  wise  clear  the  guilty." 

As  the  blood  that  was  shed  had  to  be  redeemed 
by  the  Goel,  because  the  law  demanded  "life  for 
life,"  and*  was  redeemed  when  the  man-slayer  was 
killed — the  land  being  cleansed  or  atonement  being 
made — so  the  demands  against  the  sinner  must  be 
met;  and  when  met,  he  is  redeemed  from  the  curse 
of  the  law. 

The  ass,  because  it  was  unclean,  could  not  be  ac- 
cepted by  the  Lord,  and  was,  therefore,  doomed  to 
destruction,  unless  redeemed  by  a  lamb.  The  lamb 
was  a  ransom — a  price  paid — for  its  redemption; 
and  shows  to  whom  the  price  was  paid,  and  ivhy. 

Christ  meets  the  demand — pays  the  price — and 
thus  he  becomes  our  "ransom." 

"And  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."- 
Matt.  xx.  28. 

"  As  Christ  also  loved  the  church  and  gave  him- 
self  for  it."—  Eph.  v.  25. 

"Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all."-— i  Tim. 
ii.  6. 

In  looking  at  these  passages  the  prepositions  that 
are  used  have  special  force.  They  are  fore/?  (Imper} 
and  avri  (anti). 

The  first  is  used  in  Ephesians,  the  last  in  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  while  both  are  used  in  Timothy. 


REDEMPTION.  179 

Huper,  "with  the  genitive,  generally,  but  not 
always,  carries  the  idea  of  substitution."  It  is  the 
preposition  used  in  John  x.  15;  Rom.  v.  6-8;  2 
Cor.  v.  20;  Gal  iii.  13,  etc. 

Anti,  better  than  any  other  Greek  word,  expresses 
the  idea  of  substitution.  (See  Winer's  Grammar 
of  New  Testament  Greek.)  It  is  used  in  the  follow- 
ing texts : 

"/;*  the  room  (anti)  of  his  father  Herod." — Matt, 
ii.  22. 

"An  eye  for  (anti)  an  eye." — Matt.  v.  38. 

:'Will  he  for  a  fish  give  him  a  stone. " — Matt. 
xi.  ii. 

"Recompense  to  no  man  evil  yfrrevil." — Rom. 
xii.  17. 

See  also  Matt.  xvii.  27;  Luke  i.  20;  xii.  3;  xix. 
44;  John  i.  16;  Acts  xii.  13;  i  Cor.  xi.  15;  Kph. 
v.  31;  i  Thess.  v.  15;  2  Thess.  ii.  10;  Heb.  xii.  2; 
xii.  16;  James  iv.  15;  i  Peter  xiii.  9.  These  are  all 
the  texts  where  anti  is  used.  "Gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  many,"  is,  therefore,  "in  the  room," 
or  ' '  place ' '  of  many. 

In  i  Tim.  ii.  6,  both  prepositions  are  used,  so 
making  one  of  the  strongest  possible  statements  of 
substitution.  It  could  not  have  been  presented 
more  forcibly  in  Greek.  It  reads,  6  dob$  iaorov 
d.vT'dvTf>ov  unsp  Ttdvnov  (who  gave  himself  a  substi- 
tutionary  ransom  for  all). 

The  word  lorpov  "ransom"  is  here  aj/v&ttrjafft?, 
if  we  give  any  translation  to  the  anti  at  all,  as  it  is 


i8o  ATONEMENT. 

followed  by  huper,  it  would  express  the  idea  of  a 
substitutionary  ransom  for  all. 

Christ  as  our  ransom  redeems  us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law — death,  and  after  death  the  judgment — 
then,  for  the  believer  these  have  no  longer  any  ter- 
rors, as  over  us  they  have  no  longer  any  power. 

SECTION  V. — Redemption  by  Poiver. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  we  are  redeemed  from  sin 
and  the  power  of  Satan,  as  well  as  from  the  curse 
of  the  law;  this,  however,  can  not  be  by  a  ransom. 

The  idea  that  God  gave  his  Son  as  a  ransom  to 
Satan  is  preposterous.  God  can  never  recognize 
any  right  of  Satan  in  man;  otherwise,  obedience  to 
Satan  would  be  right.  The  Master  had  a  right  to 
the  service  of  his  slave,  and  this  right  was  recog- 
nized in  the  provision  for  the  payment  of  a  ransom. 
The  devil  has  no  right  to  the  service  of  men;  and 
the  payment  of  a  ransom,  being  a  recognition  of 
such  right,  is  impossible.  More,  the  devil  himself 
is  a  rebel,  to  be  overthrown  and  punished;  and  can 
have  no  right  in  his  rebellion  that  God  will  own. 
The  only  way,  then,  is  to  redeem  by  power.  The 
Egyptians  held  the  Jews  in  bondage,  but  they  had 
no  right  to  do  so;  hence,  God  pays  no  ransom  to 
the  Egyptians,  but  delivers  his  people  by  the  power 
of  his  own  strong  arm.  God  will  never  pay  the 
devil  a  price;  but  the  strong  man  armed  will  be 
overcome  by  the  stronger  than  he,  and  dragged  at 
the  chariot  wheels  of  his  conqueror,  and  then  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire. 

Neither  did  Jesus  pay  a  price  to  sin.     That  would 


REDEMPTION.  181 

be  an  absurdity.  Redemption  from  sin  can  only  be 
by  the  power  of  God. 

Substitution  here  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  im- 
possible. Christ  is,  therefore,  a  ransom,  only  as 
meeting  the  demands  of  law. 

Redemption  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  by  the 
payment  of  a  ransom,  so  that  we  are  delivered  from 
that  curse  forever,  gives  us  our  title  to  heaven. 
Redemption  from  the  power  of  Satan  and  of  sin, 
by  the  greater  power  of  God,  as  manifested  in  the 
importation  of  life,  the  poiver  of  that  life,  and 
ultimately  in  the  redemption  of  the  body,  gives 
us  fitness  for  heaven.  It  is  thus  that  Christ 
destroys  the  works  of  the  devil,  and  completes  his 
work. 

If  we  would  not  have  confused  or  erroneous  views 
of  the  work  of  Christ,  we  must  see  and  recognize 
this  distinction. 

Redemption  by  power,  while  distinct,  is  still 
closely  connected  with  redemption  by  purchase. 

SECTION  VI.  —  The  Passover  and  the  Sea. 

We  have  dealt  largely  with  the  types,  because 
they  are  the  pictures  that  God  gives  us  of  spiritual 
things;  and  in  their  light  we  reach  a  higher  con- 
ception of  the  truth. 

The  Passover  stands  out  in  the  forefront  as  among 
the  types  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  has  unusual 
interest  for  us  because  it  is  linked  with  the  memo- 
rial supper  in  the  upper  room. 

The  Passover  and  the  sea  connect  together  and 
bring  out  in  type,  this  twofold  redemption.  The 


1 82  ATONEMENT. 

Passover  reveals  God  as  Judge,  the  Red  Sea  as  De- 
liverer. 

God  was  about  to  pass  over  the  land  in  judgment, 
and  every  first-born  must  die.  Special  provision 
was,  however,  made  for  the  salvation  of  his  people. 
The  Jew  was  told  to  take  ua  lamb"  and  kill  it. 
There  must  be  death  in  every  house  in  Egypt  that 
night.  In  the  house  of  the  Egyptian  the  death  of 
the  first-born.  In  the  house  of  the  Israelite  the 
death  of  the  lamb,  slain  in  the  place  of  the  first- 
born, a  type  of  the  Lord  Jesus  slain  in  the  sinner's 
place.  This  is  plainly  substitution — the  lamb  in 
the  place  of  the  first-born — so  that  the  angel  of 
judgment  would  pass  over.  This  is  what  Christ  is. 

"For  even  Christ  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for 
us." — i  Cor.  v.  7. 

After  the  death  of  the  victim,  the  blood  was  to 
be  sprinkled  on  the  door-posts  and  on  the  lintel. 
Not  upon  the  threshold,  for  the  blood  was  too  holy 
a  thing  to  be  trampled  under  foot.  It  is  the  unbe- 
liever who  thus  places  it  under  his  feet  as  a  common 
thing.  Not  under  foot,  but  upon  the  door-posts,  is 
the  proper  place  for  the  blood.  Then  God  says: 

'  'And  the  blood  shall  be  to  you  for  a  token  upon 
the  houses  where  ye  are  :  and  when  I  see  the  blood, 
I  will  pass  over  you,  and  the  plague  shall  not  be 
upon  you  to  destroy  you." — Ex.  xii.  13. 

It  was  the  blood,  and  only  the  blood,  that  saved 
them. 

The  blood  saved  irrespective  of  their  personal 
character.  Moses  needed  the  blood  just  as  much  as 


REDEMPTION.  183 

the  worst  sinner  in  Israel;  and  the  worst  sinner  was 
just  as  safe  as  Moses,  if  the  blood  was  on  the  door-post. 

It  saved  irrespective  of  their  feelings.  Whether 
they  believed  the  testimony  of  God  about  the  blood 
so  as  to  enjoy  perfect  assurance,  or  whether  that 
testimony  was  doubted,  so  that  they  were  filled  with 
alarms  and  fears,  they  were  equally  secure,  if  the 
blood  was  there. 

It  saved  irrespective  of  their  faith.  Certainly, 
whatever  may  be  said  of  the  people,  there  was  no 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  beasts.  It  is  not  our  faith, 
but  the  blood,  that  saves.  To  trust  in  our  faith,  or 
our  experiences,  is  just  as  unsafe  as  to  trust  in  our 
works.  It  is  Christ  who  saves.  It  is  the  blood 
that  shelters.  It  shelters  us  when,  looking  away 
from  self — emptied  of  self — we  look  away  to  Jesus, 
relying  upon  him  for  salvation. 

The  blood  preserved  from  the  judgment,  but  they 
were  still  in  Egypt. 

Moses  brings  them  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  there  we 
see  them  with  the  waters  in  front  and  the  Egyptians 
behind  them. 

It  is  not  judgment  at  the  sea — that  is  passed.  It 
is  not  sin  bearing.  But  the  sea  is  the  place  where 
the  whole  power  of  evil  is  annulled,  and  deliverance 
obtained. 

"  Stand  still,  and  see  the  salvation  of  the  Lord." 
— Ex.  xiv.  13. 

Here  we  find  a  new  word  in  the  Bible — "salva- 
tion;" and  here  at  the  sea  we  find  Israel  delivered 
from  Egypt  and  delivered  forever.  The  waters 
never  opened  for  Israel's  return. 


184  ATONEMENT. 

In  the  Passover  and  the  sea  we  have  distinct 
types  of  the  twofold  redemption — by  purchase — by 
power. 

In  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  we  find  it  again 
beautifully  unfolded.  The  first  eight  chapters  give 
the  work  of  Jesus,  and  these  chapters  divide  into 
two  parts  in  the  midst  of  chapter  five. 

The  first  deals  with  the  blood  as  meeting  the 
claims  of  God,  so  that  Jesus  is  set  forth  as  our 
* '  mercy-seat, ' '  on  the  ground  of  which  we  are 
"justified  by  faith."  It  is  the  great  truth  of  our 
being  "justified  by  his  blood"  or  redemption  by 
purchase.  The  second  part  has  to  do  with  deliver- 
ance from  sin  itself.  Deliverance  in  our  experience, 
deliverance  from  its  power,  and  ultimate  deliverance 
from  its  presence,  in  ' '  the  redemption  of  the 
body."  And  this  deliverance  the  outcome  of  the 
Spirit  baptism,  the  result  of  being  "baptized  into 
his  death." 

The  first  part  has  to  do  with  redemption  from  the 
penalty  of  sin  as  transgression,  the  second  with  re- 
demption from  the  depravity  itself.  The  one  is  by 
the  blood;  the  other  by  the  imparted  life. 

"If,  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled 
to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Sou,  much  more,  being 
reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  (delivered)  by  his  life. ' ' 
— Rom.  v.  10. 

Propitiation  and  substitution;  redemption  by  pur- 
chase and  by  power;  "justification  by  blood," 
and  "justification  of  life,"  these  are  the  themes 
that  are  presented  in  the  two  parts  of  the  first  eight 
chapters  of  Romans. 


PART  III. 


THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

ELECTION. 

In  considering  the  application  of  the  atonement, 
we  are  led  to  examine  the  question  of  election,  the 
great  subject  of  controversy  of  the  ages. 

It  is  certain  that  the  Bible  teaches  election,  only 
we  need  to  discriminate  as  to  how  it  is  taught.  We 
must  not  fasten  on  to  the  name  a  doctrine  foreign 
to  the  spirit  and  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Bible  presents  us  with  a  national  election  to 
special  privileges;  an  election  to  a  special  office  or 
work,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul ;  and  also  an  individual 
election  to  eternal  life.  In  respect  to  this  last, 
Calvinists  teach  that  it  is  unconditional  and  from 
eternity. 

"By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of 
his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated 
unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death." 

"Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto 
life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was 


i86  ATONEMENT. 

laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  pur- 
pose, and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of 
his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting 
glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  without 
any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  persever- 
ance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the 
creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes  moving  him  there- 
unto; and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace. "- 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 

On  the  other  hand,  Arminians  believe  that  the 
election  is  conditional,  depending  upon  the  faith 
and  faithfulness  of  the  believer.  They  teach, 
"that  God,  from  all  eternity,  determined  to  bestow 
salvation  on  those  whom  he  foresaw  would  persevere 
unto  the  end."  Then  a  man  may  be  assured  of  his 
salvation,  but  have  no  knowledge  of  his  election; 
because  he  does  not  know  that  he  will  persevere  to 
the  end. 

Both  Calvinists  and  Arminians  date  the  election 
from  eternity,  but  the  Calvinist  makes  it  uncon- 
ditional; the  Arminian  conditional.  One  bases 
it  upon  God's  decrees,  the  other  upon  his  fore- 
knowledge. One  makes  it  all  of  grace,  the  other 
partly  of  human  merit. 

The  Calvinist  holds  that  the  individual  will  be- 
lieve and  persevere  because  he  is  one  of  the  elect; 
the  Arminian  believes  that  he  is  one  of  the  elect 
because  this  faith  and  perseverance  were  foreseen. 

Is  there  a  medium  ground?  Yes;  that  we  are 
elect  when  united  to  Christ,  and  only  as  united  to 
Christ. 

The  election  being  the  result  of  union,  is  uncon- 
ditional, the  life  being  imparted  011  the  condition  of 


ELECTION.  187 

faith;  but  the  election  being  one  of  those  blessings 
that  follow  the  union. 

It  is  thus  entirely  of  grace,  without  any  depend- 
ence on  the  merit  or  faithfulness  of  the  believer. 

Election  on  the  ground  of  foreseen  faith  carries 
with  it  this  difficulty:  that  a  man  is  elect  because 
of  his  faith  before  he  exercises  it.  An  effect  pre- 
ceding its  cause.  On  the  medium  theory,  they  are 
not  elect  because  it  was  foreseen  that  they  would  be 
in  him,  but  elect  in  him — they  are  not  elect  out  of 
him.  When  we  come  to  the  connection  of  baptism 
with  election  we  will  show  this  at  length. 

We  have  thus  three  positions : 

First.  An  unconditional  election,  depending 
alone  upon  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God. 

Second.  A  conditional  election,  depending  upon 
a  foreseen  faith  and  faithfulness  of  the  creature. 

Third.  An  unconditional  election  of  all  who  are 
in  Christ,  this  union,  and  not  the  election,  depend- 
ing upon  the  faith  being  exercised. 

In  our  investigation  we  will  examine  some  of 
the  texts  relied  on  by  Calvinists,  and  then  show 
the  connection  of  election  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

SECTION  I. — Ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  chapters 
of  Romans. 

These  form  the  citadel  of  the  Calvinistic  theory 
of  election  and  are  its  strongest  proof  texts.  A 
careful  examination  will  therefore  be  in  place.  It 
is  not  by  taking  a  verse  here  and  a  verse  there  that 
we  can  reach  the  truth,  but  by  taking  every  verse, 


1 88  ATONEMENT. 

in  its  connection,  as  part  of  Paul's  argument. 
Only  thus  can  we  rightly  divide  the  word.  We 
must  first  determine  the  theme  of  the  apostle,  the 
proposition  he  is  discussing.  Then  the  true  appli- 
cation of  individual  texts  can  be  easily  seen. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  divides  into  four  parts, 
these  three  chapters  constituting  the  third  division 
of  the  book.  It  presents  God's  dealings  with  Jew 
and  Gentile,  and  God's  promises  made  to  the  Jew 
are  reconciled  with  the  incoming  of  the  Gentiles. 

In  the  first  part  of  the  Epistle  he  showed  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  to  be  sinners,  and  that  the  right- 
eousness of  God  by  faith  was  for  both  alike;  but 
this  does  not  touch  the  question  of  the  promises. 
These  being  given  to  the  Jew,  he  claimed  an  ad- 
vantage over  the  Gentiles.  How  these  promised 
blessings,  that  they  had  always  regarded  as  spe- 
cially their  own,  could  be  given  to  a  Gentile  it  was 
hard  for  a  Jew  to  understand;  and  hard,  in  fact,  for 
any  one.  Paul  is  discussing  this  question,  showing 
the  right  of  the  Gentiles  to  share  the  promises. 
This  being  his  theme,  special  texts  must  be  inter- 
preted in  harmony  with  it. 

Paul  begins  his  argument  by  telling  of  his  great 
love  for  them.  There  is  a  parallel  here  with  the 
conduct  of  Moses;  who,  when  Israel  was  about  to 
be  cast  off,  said : 

"  Blot  me  out — only  let  Israel  live." 

Paul  sees  them  not  about  to  be,  but  actually,  set 
aside,  and  the  Gentiles  grafted  in;  so  in  the  spirit 
of  Moses,  he  says,  in  the  love  he  bore  his  people : 


ELECTION.  189 

' '  I  could  wish  that  myself  were  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,  my  kinsman  according  to 
the  flesh." 

By  a  comparison  with  the  case  of  Moses,  it  is 
plain  that  Paul  means  he  would  be  willing  to  be 
set  aside,  if  Israel  might  remain.  It  is  all  national. 

He  then  argues  from  God's  sovereignty,  as  dis- 
played in  their  own  history,  God's  right  to  let  the 
Gentiles  in. 

His  argument  is  that  they  were  not  all  Israel  who 
were  of  Israel,  because  some  of  the  descendants  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac  were  not  inheritors  of  the 
promises.  Nor  because  they  were  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham were  they  all  children.  Otherwise  the  de- 
scendants of  Ishmael  and  Esau  would  have  shared  the 
blessings  of  the  Jews.  In  choosing  Isaarc  and  not 
Ishmael,  Jacob  and  not  Esau,  God  acted  as  sover- 
eign, without  respect  to  the  merit  of  either,  both 
being  not  yet  born  (ix.  n.).  As  he  acted  sovereignly 
then,  so  he  could  now  in  bringing  in  the  Gentiles. 

The  choice  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  however,  was  not 
as  individuals  to  eternal  life,  but  as  the  fathers  of 
the  great  nation  and  channel  through  which  the 
Messiah,  the  promised  seed,  should  come.  Nor 
does  the  passing  by  of  Ishmael  and  Esau  in  anywise 
imply  that  they  were  ordained  to  lose  their  souls. 
It  was  clearly  national  election,  standing  out  in 
connection  with  God's  separating  a  people  from  the 
nations  to  be  his.  This  is  plain  from  the  history. 

U7z£>0  nations  are  in  thy  womb,  and  two  manner 
of  people  shall  be  separated  from  thy  bowels;  and 


190  ATONEMENT. 

the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the  other; 
and  the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger." — Gen. 
xxv.  23. 

This  national  election  being  of  God's  sovereignty, 
his  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles  on  the  same  ground, 
gave  them  an  equal  right  to  the  promises.  This 
being  the  theme,  it  is  easy  to  make  the  application 
of  the  different  illustrations. 

The  subject  being  national  election  to  temporal 
blessings  and  privileges,  God's  sovereignty  in  this 
is  illustrated  by  two  events  in  their  history;  one  of 
mercy  extended,  the  other  of  judgment  inflicted. 

But  are  they  examples  of  unconditional  election 
and  reprobation  ?  We  say,  unhesitatingly,  they  are 
not.  That  is  not  Paul's  theme,  nor  is  there  any 
thing  in  the  illustrations  to  sustain  it. 

What  was  the  occasion  of  God's  saying  to  Moses 
' '  I  will  have  mercy, ' '  etc. ,  and  why  does  Paul 
introduce  it  into  his  argument?  If  we  turn  to 
the  record  in  Exodus  it  will  be  made  clear.  The 
Israelites,  even  before  the  mount  where  the  fire  and 
thunder  told  of  God's  presence,  were  guilty  of  idol- 
atry. God  was  angry :  He  says  : 

"Go  up  hence,  thou  and  the  people  ....  into 
the  land.  .  .  .  /  will  not  go  lip  in  the  midst  of  thee." 

This  was  equivalent  to  casting  off  his  people. 
Moses  pleads  with  God  with  all  the  earnestness  of 
his  soul,  and  his  intercession  avails.  God  says  : 

uMy  presence  shall  go  with  thee." 

He  might  justly  have  cast  the  people  away;  they 
had  broken  the  covenant,  and  forfeited  their  posi- 


ELECTION.  191 

tion  by  their  sin;  and  lie  might,  as  sovereign,  have 
chosen  others  to  carry  out  his  purposes.  In  fact, 
this  was  his  proposition  to  Moses,  to  destroy  the 
people,  and  make  the  promise  to  Abraham  good 
through  the  descendants  of  Moses.  Moses  is  un- 
willing to  accept  this  blessing  at  the  expense  of  his 
countrymen.  Hence,  when  on  the  intercession  of 
Moses  God  forgave  the  people,  it  was  an  act  of 
sovereign  mercy;  hence  he  says  to  Moses: 

"  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy." 

When  Paul  quotes  this,  he  does  it  to  remind  them 
that  as  God's  sovereignty  alone  led  him  to  preserve 
them  from  ruin  at  Sinai,  he  had,  on  that  ground, 
the  right  to  bring  in  the  Gentiles.  The  potter 
certainly  had  power  over  the  clay.  This  exposi- 
tion is  in  harmony  with  the  theme  of  the  epistle; 
the  application  to  individuals  now  is  not. 

So  with  Pharaoh;  by  preserving  him  from  the 
plagues,  by  his  long-suffering  and  patience,  God 
gave  him  ample  time  for  repentance.  But,  as  it  is 
written : 

"Because  sentence  against  an  evil  work  is  not 
executed  speedily,  therefore  the  hearts  of  the  sons 
of  men  are  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil." 

So  all  this  but  hardens  Pharaoh's  heart.  He 
grows  bolder  and  more  insolent,  and  God  in  his 
sovereignty  permits  it,  until,  his  cup  being  full,  his 
final  overthrow  makes  Israel's  deliverance  more 
glorious.  It  all  bore  upon  their  call  as  a  nation, 
and  God's  glory  upon  the  earth.  God,  in  deliver- 
ing his  people,  acted  as  sovereign,  thus  again 


192  ATONEMENT. 

showing  his  right  to  bring  in  the  Gentiles.  It  has 
no  direct  reference  to  Pharaoh's  eternal  destiny; 
that  was  undoubtedly  settled  long  before,  upon  the 
principles  God  has  revealed  to  men. 

The  argument  as  to  the  potter  and  the  clay  is 
still  in  respect  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  as  the  whole 
context  shows.  If  the  reader  will  study  these 
chapters  in  the  light  of  this  exposition,  this  will  be 
easily  seen. 

SECTION  1 1 . — Predestination. 

"For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  pre- 
destinate to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son." 

That  we  may  have  a  fair  statement  as  to  the 
controversy  about  foreknowledge  (which  is  the  key 
to  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  predestination),  we 
quote  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge's  definitions. 

"Foreknowledge  is  an  act  of  the  infinite  intelli- 
gence of  God,  knowing  from  all  eternity,  without 
change,  the  certain  futurition  of  all  events,  of 
every  class  whatsoever,  that  ever  will  come  to  pass. 

"  Foreordination  is  an  act  of  the  infinitely  intel- 
ligent, foreknowing,  righteous,  and  benevolent  will 
of  God,  from  all  eternity  determining  the  certain 
futurition  of  all  events  of  every  class  whatsoever 
that  come  to  pass.  Foreknowledge  recognizes 
the  certain  futurition  of  events,  while  foreordina- 
tion  makes  them  certainly  future." 

"God  foreknows  all  events  as  certainly  future 
because  he  has  decreed  them  and  thus  made  them 
certainly  future." 


ELECTION.  193 

This  is  as  clear  as  —  Kant's  "  Critique  of  Pure 
Reason."  "Foreknowledge  is  an  act."  As  acts 
are  the  result  of  volitions,  it  logically  follows  from 
this  that  God's  foreknowledge  is  the  product  of  his 
will,  and  therefore  not  a  necessary  attribute  of  the 
Deity.  This  is  a  denial  of  the  omniscience  of  God. 
Or,  if  not  a  denial,  it  makes  this  attribute  to  be  the 
product  of  will.  If  one  attribute  is,  then  all  are;  and 
we  have  a  self-existent  being  who  is  his  own  creator. 

Again,  u  Foreordination  is  an  act  of  th 
foreknowing  ....  will  of  God."  Then  his  fore- 
knowledge is  back  of  his  decrees.  But  "God  fore- 
knows ....  because  he  has  decreed."  Here  dis- 
tinctly the  foreknowledge  is  the  result  of  the  de- 
crees. 'We  thus  have  a  vicious  circle.  Foreordi- 
nation based  upon  foreknowledge,  and  foreknowl- 
edge iipon  the  decrees. 

We  can  see  a  reason  for  this.  The  real  ground 
of  Calvinistic  predestination  is  in  the  last  quotation 
from  Hodge.  But  while  this  is  essential  to  the 
creed,  it  leaves  a  fatal  weakness  in  another  direction. 
If  he  foreknows  because  he  decrees,  then  logically 
he  decrees  without  any  foreknowledge,  blindly  and 
unintelligently;  otherwise  you  have  an  effect  pre- 
ceding its  cause. 

Hodge's  definitions  are  defective  in  another  di- 
rection. "  Foreknowledge  is  the  act  ....  know- 
ing (whatever  that  means  —  an  act  does  not 
know,  but  intelligence  does;  to  speak  of  'an  act 
of  the  intelligence '  as  knowing  is  to  make  of  this 
act  an  intelligent  entity)  the  certain  futurition  of 
all  .  .  that  .  . 


194  ATONEMENT. 

Certainly,  that  which  will  come  to  pass  must  be 
future,  and  to  say  that  it  takes  "an  act  of  intelli- 
gence" to  know  this  is  saying  but  little.  Every 
intelligence  knows  that  what  will  come  to  pass  is 
certainly  future;  and  if  this  is  foreknowledge,  it 
belongs  to  men  and  angels  as  well  as  to  God.  So 
also  with  his  definition  of  foreordination;  it  has  to 
do  with  making  events  certainly  future,  instead  of 
being  causative  of  events. 

From  any  stand-point,  Calvinistic  or  otherwise, 
these  definitions  are  very  defective.  We  can  only 
account  for  this  on  the  supposition  that  the  dogma 
of  predestination,  as  held  by  Calvinists,  necessi- 
tates the  basing  of  foreknowledge  upon  the  de- 
crees; and  as  this  brings  in  confusion,  his  defini- 
tions are  the  outcome  of  the  fog.  As  the  creed  is 
false,  the  definitions  must  be  unsound. 

Foreknowledge  is  to  know  beforehand.  Fore- 
ordination  is  to  ordain  or  decree  beforehand.  To 
know  and  to  decree  are  distinct  operations,  so  sepa- 
rate from  each  other  that  they  can  never  be  con- 
founded in  sound  reasoning. 

What  is  the  foreknowledge  of  God?  Simply 
that  he  knows  beforehand,  before  it  comes  to  pass. 
This  is  all  that  the  word  means;  but  this  gives  rise 
to  many  questions  as  to  the  nature  of  this  fore- 
knowledge, the  principal  one  being:  Is  this  fore- 
knowledge limited  or  unlimited?  Does  it  extend 
to  all  events,  or  are  there  exceptions,  things  God 
does  not  know  beforehand  ?  Here  we  enter  the  do- 
main of  controversy.  A  vast  majority  of  theo- 
logians hold  that  it  is  unlimited,  extending  to 


ELECTION.  195 

all  things,  including  the  free  volitions  of  all  intel- 
ligences, so  that  nothing  happens  but  what  was 
known  to  God  from  all  eternity;  some  adding  that 
his  foreknowledge  extends  "  to  all  possible  events  as 
well  as  to  those  that  are  actual." 

Others,  while  holding  to  the  foreknowledge  of 
God,  deny  that  it  is  unlimited,  teaching  that  certain 
classes  of  events  (about  which  they  are  not  agreed) 
are  unknown  to  God  before  they  come  to  pass. 
That  is,  while  he  knows  them  as  possible,  he  does 
not  know  them  as  actual;  most  explaining  that  the 
reason  of  this  is  that  he  has  willed  not  to  know 
them — a  self-evident  contradiction. 

We  believe  that  nothing  can  be  maintained  but 
the  unlimited  foreknowledge  of  God.  If  his  fore- 
knowledge is  not  unlimited,  we  can  never  reason 
out  the  absolute  perfection  of  God.  All  the  attri- 
butes are  blended  in  harmony;  and  so  intimately 
are  they  connected  that  imperfection  in  one  is  im- 
perfection in  all.  God's  omniscience  is  an  essential 
attribute;  but  he  is  not  omniscient,  if  there  is  any 
thing  unknown  to  him. 

What  is  the  foreordi nation  of  God?  Simply 
that  God  ordains  or  decrees  beforehand,  what 
comes  to  pass.  All  believe  in  foreordination  who 
believe  in  God.  The  logical  alternative  is  atheism. 
But  here  again  the  question  is  raised,  Do  God's  de- 
crees extend  to  every  thing,  or  are  there  things  God 
did  not  decree  ? 

Here  an  important  distinction  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of.  Foreknowledge  is  included  in  an  essential 
attribute  of  the  Deity — omniscience.  To  decree  be- 


196  ATONEMENT. 

ing  an  exercise,  or  manifestation,  of  the  divine  will, 
is  not  essential  to  the  divine  nature — that  is,  to  deter- 
mine an  event  is  no  more  essential  to  the  divine  nat- 
ure than  not  to  determine  it.  In  the  creation  of  men 
and  angels  God  gave  them  the  power  of  choice, 
leaving  them  free  in  the  exercise  of  these  volitions. 
Hence,  while  known  beforehand  to  God,  they  are 
not  decreed,  because  they  are  the  free  volitions  of 
other  intelligences. 

Calvinism  teaches  that — 

' '  God  from  all  eternity  did  by  the  most  wise  and 
holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchange- 
ably ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass;  yet  so  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin;  nor  is 
violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is 
the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken 
away,  but  rather  established." — Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith. 

The  first  clause  of  this  sentence  contains  a  uni- 
versal affirmation,  the  second  introduces  a  modifica- 
tion which,  however,  is  not  an  exception.  It  does 
not  say  these  are  not  decreed,  only,  ' '  yet  so  as, ' ' 
etc.  The  first  and  last  clauses  being  contradictory, 
the  proposition  can  not  stand. 

The  volitions  of  creature  intelligences  are  either 
necessitated  by  the  will  of  God,  or  they  are  free. 
If  they  are  necessitated,  then  God,  not  man,  is  the 
author  of  sin;  there  is  no  logical  escape  from  this. 
So  far  as  we  know,  no  creed  has  ever  made  God  the 
author  of  sin.  Here,  by  common  consent,  is  one 
thing  that  God  did  not  decree.  Hence,  it  must 
have  originated  in  the  volition  of  some  intelligence 


ELECTION.  197 

other  than  God.  The  existence  of  sin  is-  the  unan- 
swerable argument  for  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and 
shows  that  we  can  not  say  that  God  has  decreed  all 
things.  What  God  permits  he  does  not  decree;  for 
his  decrees  are  always  causative.  To  speak  of  a 
permissive  decree  is  a  contradiction  in  the  terms. 

To  decree  is  to  determine  that  it  shall  be;  and 
when  God  determines  a  thing,  it  always  is. 

A  better  statement  as  to  the  decrees  is : 


u 


God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory  and 
goodness,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordained  or  de- 
termined what  he  himself  would  do,  what  he  would 
require  his  intelligent  creatures  to  do,  and  what 
should  be  the  awards,  respectively,  of  the  obedient 
and  the  disobedient." — Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Calvinistic  theory  that  God  foreknows  be- 
cciuse  he  decrees,  is  the  reverse  of  what  the  Bible 
teaches. 

"  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes- 
tinate." 

' '  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
the  Father." 

Foreknowledge,  in  the  Bible,  is  the  ground  of 
predestination;  aad  this  is  fatal  to  the  Calvinistic 
interpretation  of  Romans  viii. 

The  truth  is  that  Calvinists  overlook  the  Eternity 
of  God.  The  time  element  has  no  place  with  God, 
and  this  is  the  reason  of  his  foreknowledge,  and  not 
his  decrees.  Instead  of  saying,  therefore,  with  Dr. 
Hoclge,  that  he  foreknows  because  he  decrees,  we 


198  ATONEMENT. 

would  say -that  foreknowledge  is  the  necessary  at- 
tribute of  an  Eternal  Being.  Not  to  foreknow  im- 
plies limitation,  limitation  implies  the  finite,  and 
the  finite  can  not  be  God.  It  is  more  rational  to 
posit  the  foreknowledge  of  God  in  his  eternity 
than  in  his  decrees.  In  revealing  his  will  to  us,  as 
we  can  see  only  from  the  time  stand-point,  his  de- 
crees rest  upon  his  foreknowledge. 

SECTION  III. — Election  and  the  Spirit  Baptism. 

This  gives  us  the  key  to  the  whole  question  of 
election,  which  is  always  ' '  in  Christ. ' ' 

u According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  Him  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world." — Eph.  i.  4. 

Here  the  choice  is  "in  Him,"  not  out  of  or  apart 
from  him.  But  in  no  sense  can  it  be  said  of  an  un- 
repentant sinner  that  he  is  "  in  Christ,"  so  that  110 
such  sinner  can  be  among  the  "chosen."  The 
terms  "elect"  or  "chosen"  are  never  used  in  the 
Bible  except  when  believers  are  addressed,  and  then 
of  all  believers.  Every  one  in  Christ  is  elect.  No 
one  is  elect  out  of  Christ.  These  statements  are  in 
harmony  with  Bible  teaching. 

"  Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  an  holy 
calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according 
to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which  was  given 
to  us  in  Christ  before  the  world  began." — 2  Tim. 
i.  9. 

Here  again  it  is  "in  Christ."  The  believer's 
oneness  with  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  every 
blessing. 


ELECTION.  199 

"Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  prom- 
ises made.  He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds,  as  of  many, 
but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed  which  is  Christ." — 
Gal.  iii.  16. 

The  seed  not  being  plural,  the  promise  is  to 
Christ,  and  to  Christ  alone.  It  is  not  made  to  a 
believer,  it  is  not  a  promise  conditioned  upon  faith. 
Consequent  upon  faith  it  no  doubt  is,  but  not  con- 
ditioned. Our  union  with  Christ  depends  upon 
our  faith;  but  the  blessings  that  he  gives  to  those 
who  are  thus  united  are  the  manifestation  of  his 
love  bestowed  freely  and  of  grace. 

uAnd  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 

"  If  ye  be  Christ's;  "  this  can  not  be  a  sinner,  as 
it  is  only  "  after  ye  believed"  that  the  Spirit  is 
given.  Without  the  Spirit  a  man  is  "  none  of  his." 
Christ  himself,  and  Christ  alone,  is  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  If  we  are  one  with  him,  if  we  are  in 
him,  what  he  is  we  are,  because  of  this  oneness. 
Thus,  and  thus  only — as  one  with  him — we  become 
the  seed  (not  seeds)  of  Abraham.  These  promises 
are  not  made  to  us  on  the  condition  that  we  have 
faith,  but  they  become  ours  in  Christ,  because  they 
are  his.  Christ  himself  is  God's  elect;  the  chosen 
one,  chosen  before  the  world  was  made.  So  again, 
if  we  are  one  with  him,  we  are  chosen,  we  are  the 
elect.  We  are  not  elect  because  of  our  faith,  but 
we  are  elect  in  him;  our  union  with  him  being  the 
only  ground  of  this  election.  If  Christ's  election 
was  unconditional,  ours  must  have  the  same  char- 


2oo  ATONEMENT. 

acter.  It  is  all  in  him.  From  this  stand-point  no 
man  is,  in  any  sense,  elect  or  chosen,  who  is  not  a 
Christian.  But,  blessed  be  his  name!  every  man  in 
Christ  is  elect,  and  as  his  election  is  from  eternity, 
theirs  is,  also,  the  moment  they  share  it. 

"  For  as  many  of  yon  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ" — Gal.  iii.  27. 

The  blessed  Spirit,  given  to  us  the  moment  we 
believe,  baptizes  us  into  Christ;  and  thus  we  are 
baptized  into  his  death  and  also  into  his  resurrec- 
tion. Union  with  Christ  is  the  ground  of  all  our 
blessings. 

By  natural  birth  we  are  born  of  Adam;  and  this 
old  man  —  born  of  Adam  —  is  dead.  This  old 
man  —  this  dead  man  —  is  in  no  sense  elect.  It  is 
only  the  new  man — the  new  creation,  born  of  God 
— that  is  alive.  This  new  man,  "born  of  the 
Spirit,"  is  the  elect  man. 

This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  subject.  A  bank- 
rupt race,  we  have  nothing  of  ourselves,  or  apart 
from  Christ.  But  when  baptized  into  Christ,  we 
have  all  things  in  him. 

How  are  we  put  into  Christ  ? 

"For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ." 

The  last  clause  is  linked  with  the  first.  As  be- 
lievers, when  we  believe,  the  Spirit  is  given;  we 
are  by  this  Spirit  baptized  into  Christ,  and  so  put 
on  Christ.  Putting  on  Christ,  we  become  what 
Christ  is.  He  is  a  Son,  so  we  become  God's  sons 


ELECTION.  201 

in   him.     It   is    in   harmony  with    this    that    Paul 
writes  : 

"Because  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen 
you  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth." — z  Thess.  ii.  13. 

Election  is  through  "  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
and  belief  of  the  truth."  Sanctification  of  the 
Spirit,  linking  us  to  Christ  and  thus  imparting  the 
divine  nature,  so  that  we  can  say,  '  ''Now  are  we  the 
sons  of  God."  The  "belief  of  the  truth,"  the 
ground  upon  which  we  are  thus  united  to  Christ. 

We  have  thus  shown  the  true  ground  of  election. 
An  election  that  is  ours  when  in  Christ.  An  elec- 
tion that  becomes  ours  the  moment  we  are  born 
again.  An  election  that  is  entirely  of  grace. 

This  is  in  harmony  with  God's  sovereignty  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  freedom  of  the  creature  on 
the  other. 

Theologically,  it  is  medium  ground.  It  honors 
the  sovereignty  of  God,  without  degrading  that 
sovereignty  to  a  strict  necessity;  as  if  God  could 
not  be  sovereign  if  man  were  free.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  makes  provision  for  the  volition  of  the 
creature,  so  that  God  acts  in  harmony  with  man's 
constitution;  and  yet  it  does  not  give  glory  to  the 
creature;  leaving  our  blessings  as  all  of  grace. 

It  presents  election  in  such  a  way  that  the  sinner 
can  not  use  it  as  an  excuse  for  his  rejection  of 
Christ,  and  yet  it  enables  the  believer  to  know 
with  a  blessed  assurance  that  he  is  one  of  the  elect. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

DIVINE    INFLUENCE. 

The  difference  between  tlie  old  and  new  school 
in  the  Presbyterian  church  is  in  brief  this :  The 
old  school  believe  in  a  limited  atonement,  that 
Christ  died  only  for  the  elect,  and  that  those  for 
whom  he  died,  and  none  others,  will  be  saved,  the 
non-elect  being  foreordained  to  be  lost. 

New  school  Presbyterians  believe  that  Christ 
died  for  all  men  (but  not  in  the  sense  advocated  in 
this  book),  and  that  all  men  may  be  saved  if  they 
will  believe.  But  both  old  and  new  school  teach 
that,  in  the  application  of  the  atonement,  none  will 
believe  except  they  be  regenerated.  Both  believe 
that,  in  regenerating  one  and  passing  by  another, 
God  acts  sovereignly,  electing  some  to  eternal  life. 
The  new  school,  however,  deny  eternal  reproba- 
tion, holding  that  all  may  come  if  they  will. 

The  Medium  Theology  differs  from  both;  affirm- 
ing that  faith  is  the  condition  of  regeneration,  and 
precedes  it  in  every  case.  Instead  of  the  regenera- 
tion producing  the  faith,  the  faith  is  the  procuring 
cause  of  the  regeneration. 

This  leads  to  an  examination  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  divine  influence  as  it  stands  connected  with 
the  faith  that  saves. 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  203 

Equally  with  Calvinists,  we  repudiate  the  idea  of 
salvation  by  works,  and,  equally  with  them,  believe 
it  to  be  entirely  of  grace.  They,  however,  by  grace 
mean  that  it  is  entirely  of  God's  power,  who  does 
the  whole  work  apart  from  any  faith  exercised  by 
man,  faith  being  the  first  exercise  of  a  regenerated, 
new-born  soul. 

By  grace  we  understand  that  salvation  is  from 
God,  that  it  is  a  free  gift,  irrespective  of  any  work 
or  merit  of  the  creature.  But  we  do  not  believe 
that  faith  is  a  work,  or  in  any  sense  meritorious  in 
itself.  Whenever  we  make  a  work  of  our  faith, 
trusting  in  it  rather  than  in  Christ,  it  becomes  a 
legal  faith  that  can  not  save.  Receiving  is  not 
meriting,  and  faith  is  receiving.  Grace  does  not 
exclude  the  act  of  faith,  but  includes  it. 

"Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by 
grace." — Rom.  iv.  16. 

uAs  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
poiver  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name." — John  i.  12. 

SECTION  I.: — Inability: 

The  Calvinistic  position  as  to  this  is  set  forth  by 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  clearly  and  forcibly,  as  follows : 

"The  orthodox  doctrine  does  not  teach,  first,  that 
man  by  the  fall  has  lost  any  of  his  constitutional 
faculties  necessary  to  constitute  him  a  responsible 
moral  agent.  These  are  (a)  reason,  (d)  conscience, 
and  (c)  free  will.  Man  possesses  all  of  these  in  ex- 
cise. He  has  po\\*er  to  know  the  truth;  he  recog- 
nizes and  feels  moral  distinctions  and  obligations; 


204  ATONEMENT. 

his  affections  and  tendencies  and  habits  of  action 
are  spontaneous;  in  all  his  volitions  he  chooses  and 
refuses  freely  as  he  pleases.  Therefore  he  is  re- 
sponsible. Nor,  second,  that  man  has  not  power 
to  feel  and  to  do  many  things  which  are  good  and 
amiable,  benevolent  and  just,  in  the  relations  he 
sustains  to  his  fellow-men. 

"But  the  orthodox  doctrine  does  teach,  first,  that 
the  inability  of  man  since  the  fall  concerns  things 
which  involve  our  relation  as  spiritual  beings  to 
God  —  the  apprehension  and  love  of  spiritual  ex- 
cellence and  action  in  conformity  therewith.  These 
matters  are  designated  in  the  Confessions  *  things  of 
God,'  ( things  of  the  Spirit,'  'things  which  pertain 
to  salvation.'  Second,  that  man  since  the  fall  is 
utterly  unable  to  know,  or  to  feel,  or  to  act  in  cor- 
respondence with  these  things.  A  natural  man 
may  be  intellectually  illuminated,  but  he  is  spirit- 
ually blind.  He  may  possess  natural  affections,  but 
his  heart  is  dead  toward  God,  and  invincibly  averse 
to  his  person  and  law.  He  may  obey  the  letter, 
but  he  can  not  obey  in  spirit  and  in  truth." 

This  we  may  accept  as  a  statement  of  man's  in- 
ability, and  hence  of  his  need  of  "divine  influ- 
ence," in  order  to  salvation.  Thus  far,  we  are  in 
full  accord  with  him.  But  Dr.  Hodge  goes  farther, 
and  then  we  have  to  part  company.  He  says  : 

"It  is  absolute  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  term. 
No  unregenerate  man  has  power  either  directly  or 
indirectly  to  do  what  is  required  of  him  in  this  re- 
spect; nor  to  change  his  own  nature  so  as  to  in- 
crease his  power;  nor  to  prepare  himself  for  grace, 
nor  in  the  first  instance  to  co-operate  with  grace, 
until  in  the  act  of  regeneration  God  changes  his 
nature  and  gives  him  through  grace  gracious  ability 
to  act  graciously  in  constant  dependence  upon  grace. " 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  205 

This  conflicts  with  his  statement  in  the  first  quo- 
tation we  made  from  him,  where  he  distinctly  rec- 
ognizes the  possession  of  the  "power"  that  he 
here  denies,  unless  he  nses  the  word  in  a  different 
sense. 

We  hold  that  all  men  have  lost  the  ability  to 
render  acceptable  service  to  God.  This  is  the  in- 
evitable result  of  depravity.  Depravity  must  be 
total,  in  the  sense  that  it  affects  the  entire  man,  so 
that  his  emotions  and  sensibilities,  his  thoughts, 
feelings,  affection,  judgment,  and  will  are  all  alike 
perverted.  Thus  every  act  of  worship  must  be  af- 
fected by  this  corruption,  and,  apart  from  the  work 
of  Christ,  be  utterly  unacceptable  to  God. 

Again,  a  man  is  utterly  unable  to  regenerate  him- 
self. Regeneration  is  absolutely  the  work  of  God. 

So  far  we  agree;  but  when  we  are  told  that  man 
can  not  believe  until  he  is  regenerated,  we  dissent. 

Edwards  makes  a  distinction  between  natural 
and  moral  ability;  and  while  Dr.  Hodge  objects  to 
it,  he  has  practically  made  the  same  distinction  in 
the  first  extract  given  above,  although  he  blots  it 
out  in  the  second. 

Natural  ability  means  that  man  has  possession  of 
all  those  faculties  necessary  to  enable  him  to  do 
the  will  of  God.  He  possesses  affection,  and  hence 
the  natural  ability  to  love;  he  has  will,  and  thus 
the  natural  ability  to  choose;  and  because  he  has 
this  natural  ability  he  is  responsible. 

Moral  ability  is  the  disposition  to  use  these  fac- 
ulties as  God  demands.  This  is  certainly  all  that 
the  Bible  teaches.  We  have  the  power,  or  ability, 


2o6  ATONEMENT. 

to  exercise  faith,  but  we  have  not  the  will,  or  dispo- 
sition; hence  the  complaint,  "  Ye  will  not  come. " 

This  is  in  harmony  with  our  experience.  The 
normal  condition  of  the  sinner  is  one  of  indiffer- 
ence, if  not  opposition,  to  the  offer  of  salvation. 
While  this  indifference  remains,  the  sinner  never 
will  come  to  Christ,  and  never  will  be  saved.  This 
is  the  result  of  depravity.  If  men  are  saved,  pro- 
vision must  be  made  to  remove  it.  It  is  for  this 
reason  we  recognize  the  necessity  for  divine  influ- 
ence. But  we  differ  in  toto  from  the  Calvinist  as 
to  the  nature  of  this  influence.  He  maintains  that 
God  regenerates,  and  therefore  the  man  believes. 
We,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  convinces,  thus  arousing 
interest  where  there  was  indifference,  thus  making 
salvation  possible.  This  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  common  to  the  race,  and  of  such  a  character  that 
it  may  be  resisted  and  made  of  no  avail.  So  we 
find  men  urged  not  to  "resist  the  Holy  Ghost." 
When  thus  "awakened,"  men  are  left  to  exercise 
their  "natural  ability,"  the  powers  they  already 
possess,  and  "trust  in  Christ,"  and  those  who  thus 
trust  are  regenerated  and  saved. 

God's  Spirit  acts  sovereignly,  according  to  his 
will,  in  thus  convicting.  But  God's  Spirit  will  al- 
ways act  in  answer  to  prayer,  whether  of  the  sinner 
or  of  the  church. 

SECTION  II. — Saving  Faith. 

Much  of  the  controversy  as  to  the  nature  of  faith 
arises  from  considering  the  meaning  of  the  word 
apart  from  its  object. 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  207 

In  the  Greek,  the  noun  7r/<mc  (pistis),  translated 
"faith,"  and  the  verb  namixti  {pisteuoo},  trans- 
lated "believe,"  are  both  derived  from  the  verb 
xseffco  (peithoo),  generally  translated  "persuade," 
but  sometimes  incorrectly  "obey."  The  root 
meaning  is  "to  persuade,"  from  which  we  get  be- 
lief— a  firm  persuasion — of  the  truth. 

Faith  may  be  defined  as  "belief  of  the  truth  " — 
"the  belief  of  the  testimony" — when  the  word 
has  for  its  object  a  statement  or  a  fact. 

This  faith,  or  belief,  is  the  direct  product  of  the 
evidence,  and  does  not  depend  upon  the  will.  If  a 
man  who  has  a  reputation  for  circulating  falsehoods 
states  a  fact,  we  are  in  doubt  as  to  its  reality,  be- 
cause the  testimony  is  insufficient.  But  if  a  num- 
ber of  reputable  citizens  agree  in  the  testimony, 
all  doubt  is  impossible.  This  belief  is  necessitated 
when  the  evidence  is  sufficient,  and  depends  upon 
the  evidence.  A  man  can  not  be  responsible  for 
his  belief  in  this  sense  of  the  word.  He  may  be 
responsible  for  failure  to  investigate  the  evidence, 
and  in  that  case  the  refusal  to  believe  is  a  refusal 
to  investigate.  If  saving  faith  was  only  the  "be- 
lief of  testimony,"  it  could  not  be  properly  a  sub- 
ject of  command,  as  it  would  be  entirely  a  question 
of  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence. 

Faith  may  be  defined  as  confidence,  or  trust, 
when  its  object  is  a  person. 

The  evidence  as  to  a  man's  character  may  be  such 
as  to  inspire  confidence,  or  trust.  We  then  say 
that  we  have  faith — that  is,  confidence — in  the  man. 

The  New  Testament  meets  us  with  a  person;  and 


2o8  ATONEMENT. 

we  are  commanded  to  believe,  to  have  faith,  in  this 
person.  Over  one  hundred  times  it  is  the  person 
that  is  presented  as  the  object  of  faith,  only  twice 
his  work.  It  is  not  the  belief  of  certain  dogmas  or 
facts,  which  depends  upon  evidence,  but  faith  in  a 
person  that  the  Bible  demands.  This  faith  can  be 
exercised,  whatever  the  amount  of  knowledge  that 
is  possessed,  by  the  most  simple  as  well  as  the  most 
profound. 

In  defining  saving  faith  we  need  always  to  re- 
member that  in  the  Greek  the  preposition  ev  (en) 
in,  is  never  used;  but  always  e^  (eis)  or  enc  (epi). 
Even  when  it  says,  "Ye  believe  in  God  believe  also 
in  me,"  it  is  not  "/Vz"  in  the  Greek. 

The  prepositions  used  are  important  factors  in 
determining  what  that  faith  is  that  saves. 

Eis  denotes  "motion  toward."  It  carries  the 
subject  toward  its  object,  whether  to  penetrate,  or 
otherwise,  being  indicated  by  the  context.  It  indi- 
cates the  personal  appropriation  of  Christ.  It  is 
the  response  to  the  invitation  "come,"  leading  the 
sinner  on  until  he  is  in  Christ. 

Epi  (upon)  denotes  the  idea  of  building,  resting, 
or  relying,  upon  Christ. 

Yonder  is  an  Israelite,  bitten  by  a  serpent.  He 
is  told  of  the  brazen  serpent  set  up  by  divine  grace. 
He  believes  the  fact — believes  the  testimony — but. 
stays  in  his  tent.  That  would  do  him  no  good. 
He  must  go  and  look.  Eis  indicates  this  action. 
It  points  out  that  the  faith  carries  us  to  Christ,  that 
it  is  therefore  active — a  living  faith.  The  same 
thing  is  taught  in  Romans  x. 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  209 

"Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved.  How  shall  they  call  on  him 
whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  and  how  shall  they 
believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  and 
how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?  and  how 
shall  they  preach  except  they  be  sent?  " 

This  is  the  divine  order.  God  calls  the  preacher, 
who  then  proclaims  the  message.  The  sinner 
hears,  he  believes — that  is,  he  believes  the  facts,  be- 
lieves the  testimony.  Still  he  is  not  saved.  Every 
one  in  a  Christian  land  has  reached  this  point,  has 
this  belief,  if  he  is  not  an  infidel. 

He  believes  in — that  is,  he  believes  about — the 
Lord  Jesus.  He  believes  that  what  the  Bible  teaches 
is  true.  Yet  for  salvation  one  step  more  is  needed ; 
he  must  "call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  This 
does  not  mean  that  he  must  pray,  for  the  word  is 
never  used  in  that  sense  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  Greek  word  is  lnt$aZso/jtM  (epikaleomai],  and 
is  the  word  used  when  Paul  says,  "I  appeal  unto 
Csesar." 

Believing  all  about  Christ,  we  must  rely  upon 
him  for  salvation.  We  must  appeal  to  the  name  of 
the  Lord. 

"  Just  as  I  am,  without  one  plea, 
But  that  thy  blood  was  shed  for  me." 

' '  Nothing  in  my  hand  I  bring, 
Simply  to  thy  cross  I  cling." 

We  believe  the  testimony  about  the  physician, 
but  we  receive  no  benefit  until  we  put  the  case  into 


2io  ATONEMENT. 

his  hands.  So,  as  ruined,  helpless,  lost  sinners,  we 
believe  the  testimony,  and  coming  to  the  only  One 
who  is  able  to  help  us,  we  trust  him  to  do  the  work. 
Faith  is  the  committal  of  the  soul  and  its  salvation 
into  the  hands  of  Jesus.  As  Paul  says : 

"I  know  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  per- 
suaded that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which  I  have 
committed  unto  him  against  that  day." — 2 
Tim.  i.  12. 

Faith  requires  action,  not  passive  waiting;  and 
we  are  held  responsible,  therefore,  to  believe;  and 
on  the  ground  of  this  faith  we  are  saved. 

We  are  commanded  to  believe,  which  clearly  im- 
plies that  the  act  is  ours.  We  are  condemned  for 
not  believing,  which  could  not  be  if  faith  had  not 
been  possible.  If  faith  be  the  fruit  of  regeneration, 
we  can  not  conceive  any  just  ground  of  condemna- 
tion for  unbelief.  Faith  must,  then,  be  an  act  of 
God's,  and  not  the  sinner's. 

On  the  other  hand,  provision  must  be  made  to 
neutralize  the  indifference  and  lack  of  disposition 
to  believe.  This  is  done  by  the  gracious  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conviction.  This  influence  is 
exerted  upon  all  men,  so  that  all  can  be  saved. 
This  is  indicated  by  the  words  of  the  Savior  when 
speaking  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  And  when  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  (convince) 
the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judg- 
ment."— John  xvi.  8. 

The  "world"  includes  all.  Thus  by  producing 
a  sense  of  need,  by  leading  to  serious  thoughts  and 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  211 

impressions,  and  by  revealing  Christ,  God's  Spiri 
overcomes  the  natural  indifference  of  the  heart — 
neutralizes  the  effect  of  the  depravity  for  which 
they  are  not  responsible — leaving  men  free  to  choose 
life  or  death. 

The  convincing  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
not  be  confounded  with  the  feeling,  the  emotion 
that  it  produces.  This  feeling  is  the  result  of  his 
work,  and  not  the  work  itself,  differing  in  individ- 
uals according  to  their  temperament,  their  surround- 
ings, the  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  them, 
and  the  nature  of  the  methods  of  work  employed. 
It  is  of  moment  that  men  should  be  reminded  of  this, 
as  too  many  are  waiting  for  overpowering  feelings, 
and  in  their  absence,  soothe  conscience  with  the 
idea  that  it  is  something  beyond  their  control,  and 
they  are,  therefore,  not  responsible  for  immediate 
action. 

It  is  because  of  this  divine  work  that  we  have 
such  texts  as — 

* '  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me  draw  him;  and  I  will  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day." 

But  conviction  is  not  regeneration;  this  last  fol- 
lows, but  never  precedes  faith.  This  is  shown  by 
the  following  facts : 

First.  L/ife  is  always  conditioned  upon  faith,  never 
faith  upon  the  life. 

' '  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have 
life." 

"  He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life." 


2i2  ATONEMENT. 

Calvinism  reverses  this.  As  the  new  birth  is  the 
beginning  of  this  life,  it  must  follow  the  faith  upon 
which  it  is  conditioned. 

Second.  The  Bible  declares  that  without  faith  no 
one  can  have  life. 

"  He  that  believeth  not  shall  not  see  life." 

Unless  a  man  can  be  regenerated  without  life, 
this  shows  that  a  man  can  not  be  regenerated  with- 
out faith.  To  do  so  God's  word  would  have  to  be 
set  aside. 

Third.  The  responsibility  and  condemnation  for 
not  believing  show  that  regeneration  follows  the 
faith,  and  that  in  exercising  faith  men  are  free. 
We  know  it  is  said  that  a  man  may  be  justly  con- 
demned for  his  unbelief  because  he  has  the  natural 
ability  to  believe,  and  that  God's  regenerating  one, 
and  not  another,  does  no  harm  to  the  last,  nor  less- 
ens his  responsibility. 

But  in  thus  reasoning,  it  is  forgotten  that  men 
are  born  depraved ;  without  any  choice  of  their  own; 
and  that  they  are  not  responsible  for  the  depraved 
nature  and  its  dispositions. 

Then  the  provision  made  is  for  fallen  men;  for 
men  known  to  be  depraved  when  the  provision  was 
made;  and  the  condemnation  is  for  rejection  under 
such  surroundings  as  these.  Unless  there  be  a  real 
provision,  one  made  in  good  faith,  one  that  was 
within  the  reach  of  those  who  reject  it,  condemna- 
tion for  unbelief  would  be  unjust. 

We  come  into  being  without  any  volition  of  our 
own;  we  are  born  depraved  without  any  wrong  for 


DIVINE  INFLUENCE.  213 

which  we  are  personally  responsible,  and  can  never 
believe  it  would  be  right  that  we  should  be  con- 
signed to  endless  despair  infallibly,  and  apart  from 
any  choice  that  we  may  make. 

The  terrible  inheritance  of  corruption  can  never 
be  reconciled  with  the  goodness  of  God  only  as 
provision  is  made,  as  wide  as  the  race,  for  its  removal 
and  man's  salvation. 

That  fallen  men  are  justly  condemned  for  their 
sins  is  true;  but  only  because  they  have  been  free 
not  to  do  the  wrong.  If  the  sin  had  been  necessi- 
tated by  the  evil  nature,  punishment  would  be  un- 
just. To  add  to  this  other  punishment  because  of 
the  rejection  of  a  remedy,  if  in  its  rejection  they 
had  no  real  choice,  would  be  unjust;  as  it  would 
make  that  which  was  intended  as  a  blessing  to  the 
saved,  a  curse  to  the  unsaved;  without  any  possibil- 
ity of  avoidance  on  their  part. 

To  argue  the  right  of  God  to  choose  some  and 
pass  by  others,  is  one  thing;  to  condemn  those 
passed  by  for  being  so,  is  quite  another. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE    NEW   BIRTH. 

The  theory  of  regeneration  presented  in  these 
pages  is  the  logical  sequence  of  the  Medium  Theory 
of  the  Atonement,  and  inseparable  from  it.  The 
key  is  found  in  John  iii. 

' '  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit. ' ' 

Nicodemus,  a  Jewish  teacher,  came  to  Jesus  by 
night  as  an  earnest  inquirer  after  truth.  He  ia  met 
with  the  startling  statement — 

u  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  can  not  see  the 
kingdom  of  God." 

Although  a  religious  teacher,  he  is  entirely  igno- 
rant of  the  great  truth,  found  everywhere  in  the  Old 
Testament,  of  a  spiritual  birth.  Zealous  of  cir- 
cumcision, he  knew  nothing  of  that  circumcision 
of  the  heart  that  the  Old  Testament  writers  pro- 
claimed, and  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  need  for 
a  change  of  heart,  as  set  forth  by  Bzekiel  and 
others.  The  words  of  the  Savior  are  unmeaning  to 
him,  and  thinking  only  of  a  literal  birth,  he  says : 

u  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old?  can 
he  enter  the  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb 
and  be  born  ?  ' ' 


NEW  BIRTH.  215 

To  understand  the  words  of  the  Savior  that  fol- 
low, we  must  remember  that  Jesus  is  explaining 
his  words  in  the  third  verse,  and  explaining  with 
special  reference  to  the  difficulty  of  a  material 
birth  in  the  mind  of  Nicodemus.  "How  can  a 
man  be  born  when  he  is  old?"  This  shows  what 
was  in  the  mind,  and  what  Jesus  had  to  remove  by 
his  explanation.  To  utterly  ignore  this  is  to  fail  to 
comprehend  the  entire  argument.  What  does  Jesus 
mean  by  saying,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
can  not  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  ' '  Why,  that  a 
man  must  be  spiritually  enlightened  by  the  new 
birth,  to  see  the  kingdom.  The  Jewish  teacher 
had  evidently  been  intellectually  convinced  that 
Jesus  came  from  God.  To  see  more,  he  must  be 
born  again,  the  things  of  God  being  spiritually 
discerned.  All  this,  however,  is  a  blank  to  Nico- 
demus; this  is  seen  by  his  second  question.  So 
Jesus  says : 

"Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  can  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  God." 

It  is  as  if  Jesus  had  said,  a  man  must  be  born  in 
the  way  you  are  thinking  of — literally  and  corpo- 
really—  by  means  of  water,  and  also  in  another 
and  a  totally  different  way — by  means  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Two  births  and  only  two  —  one  literal,  by 
means  of  water;  the  other  spiritual,  by  means  of 
the  Spirit.  Then,  further  carrying  out  the  ideas,  he 
adds,  that  which  is  born  of  flesh  —  born  of  water 
—  is  flesh,  etc. 

The  early  identification  of  Spirit  and  water  bap- 


2i6  ATONEMENT. 

tism  as  one  led  to  this,  and  other  texts,  being  ap- 
plied to  baptism,  because  they  taught  a  spiritual 
birth.  Commentators,  following  in  each  other's 
track,  have,  therefore,  largely  regarded  this  verse  as 
referring  to  water  baptism,  making  two  births 
where  the  early  writers  made  but  one. 

While  the  words  4 1  born  of  water "  express  a 
physiological  fact,  that  a  natural  birth  is  impossible 
except  it  be  uby  water,"  the  very  birth  that  was 
in  the  mind  of  Nicodemus;  we  believe  they  were 
used  by  the  Savior  to  point  out  another  truth  be- 
yond this. 

Water,  when  used  figuratively,  always  represents 
the  word,  as  connected  with  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "Living  water/'  more,  the  Spirit;  but  al- 
ways as  connected  with  the  word.  (John  vii. 
37,  38.) 

"Ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have 
spoken." — John  xv.  3. 

Thus  the  living  water  of  the  fourth  chapter  is  a 
presentation  to  the  woman  of  the  same  truth  Christ 
gives  to  Nicodemus.  So  we  find  the  same  dullness 
of  spiritual  apprehension,  the  same  ultimate  pre- 
sentation of  himself  as  the  object  of  faith.  This 
figurative  use  of  water  was  no  doubt  intended  by 
the  Savior;  for  we  find  Peter  bringing  the  word 
and  the  flesh  into  contrast,  just  as  Christ  does  the 
flesh  and  the  Spirit. 

That  this  new  birth  is  not  baptism  is  seen  from 
the  words : 

"Which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will 


NEW  BIRTH.  217 

of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God. " — 
John  i.  13. 

Baptism  is  pre-eminently  of  the  "will  of  man," 
and  depends  upon  that  will  for  its  accomplishment. 

SECTION  I. — That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh. 

This  is  the  sinful  nature,  or  depravity,  which 
comes  by  natural  birth.  This  inherited  sinful 
nature  meets  us  in  every  part  of  the  Bible. 

"Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing-  out  of  an  un- 
clean ?  " — Job  xiv.  4. 

"How  then  can  man  be  justified  with  God?  or 
how  can  he  be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman? " — 
Job  xxv.  4. 

Verses  might  be  multiplied  showing  that  the 
Bible  fully 'and  constantly  teaches  the  inheritance 
of  a  sinful  nature.  It  was  for  this  reason  we  find 
so  large  a  part  of  the  books  of  Moses  occupied 
with  those  ceremonies  that  stood  connected  with 
the  birth  of  a  child,  all,  like  those  in  the  twelfth  of 
Leviticus,  proclaiming  that  man  is  by  birth  sinful. 
This  sinful  nature  is  called,  in  the  Bible,  by  sev- 
eral names,  thus : 

First.  Sin,  in  distinction  to  sins.  Not  that  sin 
in  the  singular  number  always  refers  to  the  nature, 
but  that  the  nature  is  so  called.  In  the  first  Epistle 
of  John,  verse  8  of  the  first  chapter  refers  to  the 
nature,  and  verse  10  to  sin  as  a  transgression. 

"No  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in 
me." — Rom.  vii.  21. 


218  ATONEMENT. 

This  must  mean  sin  as  nature,  as  transgression  is 
something  done,  not  something  within. 
Second.   It  is  called  the  flesh. 

"That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."— 
John  iii.  6. 

' '  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  can  not  please  God. 
But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so 
be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you."  —Rom. 
viii.  9. 

As  Paul  is  writing  to  living  men,  who  were  in 
the  body,  "flesh"  can  not  mean  the  body,  and 
therefore  must  refer  to  the  nature. 

Third.   It  is  called  the  old  man. 

' '  That  ye  put  off  concerning  the  former  conver- 
sation the  old  man." — Eph.  iv.  22,  etc. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  the  evil  nature  can  not 
be  changed,  mended,  or  improved.  Spirit  is  not 
flesh  transformed  into  spirit.  The  idea  of  the  flesh 
being  changed  is  unknown  to  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  "mortified,"  never  "sanctified."  The  Bible 
teaches  its  utter  ruin  and  hopeless  condition. 

"Because  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against 
God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be" — Rom.  viii.  7. 

"Flesh"  and  "carnal"  translate  the  same 
Greek  word,  so  we  have  used  the  marginal  trans- 
lation. "The  carnal  mind,"  the  mind  of  this  old 
man,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God.  Then 
with  an  emphasis  that  ought  to  settle  the  whole 
question,  he  adds,  "neither  indeed  can  be." 


NEW  BIRTH.  219 

SECTION  II. —  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
spirit. 

Just  as  by  natural  birth  a  man  inherits  a  sinful 
nature,  so  in  the  new  birth  he  has  created  in  him  a 
new  nature.  Not  a  new  faculty,  or  organ,  but  a 
new  nature.  How,  will  be  shown  presently. 

* '  If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature ' ' 
(Greek  XT«WC,  creation). — 2  Cor.  v.  17. 

"For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  avail- 
eth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  crea- 
tion (xn'<«c).n — Gal.  vi.  15. 

Just  as  the  old  nature  has  its  distinctive  names, 
so  this  new  creation,  or  new  nature,  has  also. 

First.  It  is  called  eternal  life.  Eternal  life  is 
presented  under  various  aspects  in  the  Bible.  Thus 
Christ  himself  is  the  eternal  life  (i  John  i.  2 ;  v.  20, 
etc).  It  is  eternal  life  we  enter  upon  at  death.  So, 
also,  the  motions,  emotions,  and  activities  of  the 
Christian — the  new  nature — is  eternal  life. 

"He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life." 
— John  vi.  47. 

Second.   It  is  called  Spirit. 

"That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 

Third.   It  is  called  the  "new  man." 

' ( That  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God 
is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness." — 
Kph.  iv.  24. 

"And  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  re- 
newed in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that 
created  him." — Col.  iii.  10. 


220  ATONEMENT. 

This  new  nature  is  created  in  the  believer  by  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  i.  13).  As  the 
"old  man"  can  not  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
so  this  new  man  never  sins. 

"  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit 
sin;  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him  and  he  can  not 
sm\  because  he  is  born  of  God." — i  John  iii.  9. 

"Whosoever"  means  every  one,  so  that  what  is 
here  said  is  true  of  every  Christian,  and  not  of  a 
special  class.  Of  course,  this  does  not  mean  that 
Christians,  as  such,  do  not  sin;  for  such  testimony 
has  never  been  given  of  any  one  by  his  fellow-men, 
who  are  the  only  competent  witnesses.  Sin  and 
death  are  joined  together,  and  a  sinless  man  could 
never  die.  "This  do  and  thou  shall  live"  would 
forever  keep  him  upon  the  earth,  unless  God  took 
him,  as  he  did  the  prophet  of  fire,  in  a  chariot  of 
fire:  A  man's  own  testimony  is,  of  course,  only  a 
piece  of  conceit  and  valueless  as  testimony.  A 
man  may  tell  of  his  experience,  feelings,  or  belief, 
but  any  claim  as  to  a  sinless  life  is  of  no  value; 
that  testimony  must  come  from  others,  and  has 
never  been  given.  Hence,  John's  words  have  a  spe- 
cial force  and  application. 

' '  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  our- 
selves." 

We  do  not  deceive  God,  nor  our  neighbors;  but 
we  do  deceive — and  wofully — ourselves. 

To  understand  John,  we  must  remember  that  the 
old  man,  while  alive  in  our  experience,  is  looked 
upon  as  dead  by  the  L,ord. 


NEW  BIRTH.  221 

To  illustrate :  During  the  Franco- Prussian  war, 
a  man  was  drafted  for  the  army.  A  friend  offered 
to  go  in  his  stead.  Having  a  family  to  support,  he 
accepted  the  offer.  In  the  first  battle  this  friend 
was  shot  and  killed.  Soon  after  the  same  man  was 
drafted  again;  but  instead  of  going,  or  sending  an- 
other substitute,  he  wrote  to  the  officials,  "I  am 
dead;  I  have  lost  my  life  in  the  service  of  my 
country;  she  has  no  further  claim  upon  me."  It 
was  decided  to  be  a  valid  plea.  He  had  died  in  the 
person  of  his  substitute,  who,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
law,  stood  in  his  place;  so  that  what  was  done  by 
the  substitute  was  done  by  him  legally.  Just  so  is 
it  with  the  believer;  as  Christ  takes  his  place  and 
dies  for  him,  he  can  say  with  Paul, 

"I  was  (Greek  is  in  aorist  tense)  crucified  with 
Christ;  nevertheless  I  live;  yet  not  I  (the  old  man) 
but  Christ  (the  new  man)  liveth  in  me." — Gal. 
ii.  20. 

' '  Ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God.  "—Col.  iii.  3. 

As  the  old  man  is  looked  upon  as  dead — "dead 
with  Christ" — it  is  only  the  new  man  of  whom 
John  is  speaking,  and  this  new  man — uborn  of 
God,"  not  of  Adam — does  not,  and  can  not  sin. 

More,  as  still  further  carrying  out  this  idea.  As 
by  natural  birth  we  are  united  to  Adam,  and  by 
spiritual  birth  to  Christ,  the  union  with  the  old 
Adam  nature  is  not  broken  until  death;  hence,  we 
are  not  fully  brought  into  the  son's  place  until  the 
resurrection. 


222  ATONEMENT. 

' '  Waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  body." 

SECTION  III. — The  two  natures  in  conflict. 

By  natural  birth  we  are  born  of  Adam,  inherit- 
ing the  Adam  nature — uthat  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh."  By  spiritual  birth  we  are  born  of 
God,  being  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature, 
by  our  union  with  Christ — "that  which  is  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spirit."  The  result  is  that  we  have 
both  the  Adam  and  the  Christ  nature  in  us  as  be- 
lievers. One  sinful,  the  other  sinless;  one  fallen 
and  depraved,  the  other  holy  and  impeccable.  Be- 
tween these  two  natures  there  is  conflict — the  war- 
fare of  the  Christian  life. 

uThe  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the 
spirit  against  the  flesh :  and  these  are  contrary  the 
one  to  the  other :  so  that  ye  can  not  do  the  things 
that  ye  would." — Gal.  v.  17. 

We  have  another  .strong  picture  of  this  conflict 
in  Romans  vii. 

Before  we  consider  it,  it  may  be  said  that  while 
it  is  the  experience  of  a  saved  man,  it  is  not  true 
Christian  experience.  It  is  a  believer,  with  the 
two  natures  in  conflict,  but  without  knowing  ex- 
perimentally the  "deliverance"  of  which  Paul 
speaks. 

There  are  two  features  to  this  deliverance. 

First.  In  the  seventh,  it  is  a  man  groaning  under 
law;  in  the  eighth,  it  is  a  man  "groaning"  still, 
but  under  grace. 


NEW  BIRTH.  223 

This  groaning  under  law  is  trie  result  of  not  see- 
ing the  true  relation  of  the  believer  to  the  law. 
This,  again,  comes  from  a  failure  to  distinguish  the 
dispensational  character  of  the  law. 

Some  theologians  distinguish  between  what  they 
call  the  moral  and  the  ceremonial  law.  But  the 
Bible  never  so  discriminates.  It  is  a  pure  inven- 
tion. It  was  one  law — the  law — with  its  moral  pre- 
cepts and  ceremonial  requirements. 

From  Adam  to  Moses  men  were  without  law — the 
law  of  which  Paul  was  speaking — but  they  were 
not  without  moral  precepts.  The  difficulties  come 
from  giving  to  the  law  a  meaning  and  an  applica- 
tion it  was  never  intended  to  have. 

Moral  precepts  are  the  same  in  every  age,  under 
law,  or  "without  law"  Right  and  wrong  are 
eternal  and  unchangeable;  and  being  "without 
law,"  gave  no  liberty  to  steal;  so,  being  "free  from 
the  law"  does  not  mean  license. 

All  Christians  agree  that  we  are  not  "justified 
by  the  deeds  of  the  law;  "  but,  if  we  are  under  law, 
we  can  be  justified  only  by  the  law.  It  is  only  be- 
cause we  are  "  dead  with  Christ,"  and  hence,  "dead 
to  the  law, ' '  that  salvation  is  possible  on  any  other 
ground.  (See  Rom.  vii.  1-4.) 

"Ye  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace." — 
Rom.  vi.  7. 

"  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
every  one  that  believeth." — Rom.  x.  4. 

Many  theologians  teach  that  while  we  are  free 
from  the  law  in  part,  so  that  it  is  not  the  ground 


224  ATONEMENT. 

upon  which  we  are  to  be  justified,  it  is  still  the  be- 
liever's rule  of  life.  But  this  is  logically  untenable. 
The  law  threatens  certain  penalties  for  disobedience. 
What  of  these  ?  To  say  that  we  are  free  from  its 
curse,  free  from  its  penalties,  but  not  free  from  its 
rule,  is  a  contradiction. 

The  strongest  passage  quoted  by  those  who  teach 
that  the  law  is  a  rule  of  life,  is  Matt.  v.  17-19: 

"Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law, 
or  the  prophets  :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfill.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven  and 
earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass 
from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever, 
therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  etc. 

This  is  from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which 
Jesus  is  unfolding  the  true  meaning  and  require- 
ments of  the  law.  .  It  is  addressed  to  Jews,  while 
the  dispensation  of  law  was  still  in  force.  This 
sermon  does  not  touch  the  question  of  grace  at  all. 
It  says  nothing  of  the  blood,  of  faith,  or  of  the 
gospel.  In  the  words  quoted  above,  Jesus  is  teach- 
ing what  a  legal  righteousness  means,  and  in  the 
application  says  : 

"  Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed,"  etc.— 
Matt.  v.  19,  20. 

The  law  stands  forever,  hence  we  must  die  to  be 
delivered  from  it;  but  when  by  death  we  are  thus 
free,  it  is  no  longer  a  rule  of  life,  it  no  longer 
curses. 


NEW  BIRTH.  225 

If  the  law  is  not  our  rule  of  life,  what  is  ?  Thank 
God!  the  Bible  answer  is  full  and  complete.  Of 
the  scores  of  texts,  take  the  following,  which  need 
no  comment : 

"To  me  to  live  is  Christ." — Phil.  i.  21. 

"  Be  ye,  therefore,  followers  of  God,  as  dear  chil- 
dren."— Eph.  v.  i. 

"Ought  himself  also  so  to  walk,  even  as  he 
walked" — i  John  ii.  6. 

"  Purineth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure" — i 
John  iii.  3. 

"If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  follow  me" — 
John  xii.  26. 

"Leaving  us  an  example,  that  ye  should  follow 
his  steps" — i  Peter  ii.  22. 

"As  many  as  walk  according  to  this  rule" — 
Gal.  vi.  15,  16. 

These  scriptures  might  be  multiplied,  it  being 
the  one  consistent  testimony  of  the  New  Testament 
that  Christ  himself,  and  not  the  law,  is  the  believer's 
rule  of  life  by  which  his  walk  is  to  be  ordered. 

What  advantage  is  there  in  this  ? 

(a)  It  gives  a  higher  standard  because  the  re- 
quirements of  grace  are  more  than  those  of  law. 

(b}  It  gives  a  living  model  in  the  place  of  a  dead 
rule. 

(c)  It  delivers  from  the  terrors  inseparable  from 
law. 

(d)  It  fixes  the  eye  upon  Christ,  taking  it  from 
the  law  and  from  self. 

16 


226  ATONEMENT. 

"But,"  says  an  objector,  "if  we  are  not  under 
the  law  as  a  rule  of  life,  then  we  are  not  prohibited 
from  stealing." 

We  ask  in  reply,  did  Christ  steal  ?  If  not,  as  he 
is  our  rule,  then  we  can  not  steal. 

The  law  was  given  at  Sinai,  amid  thunder  and 
lightning,  voices,  fire,  clouds,  and  earthquakes. 
The  terror  is  inseparable  from  the  law;  and  it  is 
only  when  we  realize  full  deliverance  that  we  lose 
our  fears.  We  must  get  out  from  under  old  Sinai's 
frowning  shadow,  and  then  we  can  enter  into  the 
first  element  of  deliverance — the  "no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ." 

Second.  The  next  element  of  deliverance  is  found 
in  the  words — 

"The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus, 
hath  set  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death." 

We  need  to  examine  this  closely,  so  as  to  guard 
against  a  false  interpretation.  There  is  a  real  de- 
liverance taught  here,  but  this  has  been  so  distorted 
that  it  has  done  more  than  any  thing  else  to  preju- 
dice people  against  the  truth  itself. 

Does  the  Bible  teach  that  this  old  nature  is  ever 
destroyed  or  made  holy  during  the  life  of  the  be- 
liever? Most  certainly  not.  The  flesh  is  never 
sanctified,  but  always  needs  to  be  mortified.  If  the 
flesh  was  destroyed,  men  would  not  die,  and  sin 
would  be  eternally  impossible;  but  many  of  those 
who  profess  sanctification  backslide,  showing  that 
the  flesh  is  still  there. 

On  the  other  hand,  are  we  to  be  always  in  the 


NEW  BIRTH.  227 

condition  indicated  in  Romans  vii.?  Is  the  old  man 
to  be  continually  controlling?  By  no  means.  We 
may  have  present  freedom  from  the  dominion  of  sin, 
though  not  from  its  presence.  "Free"  does  not 
mean  ( '  exempt  from, "  as  if  the  old  man  had  been 
destroyed,  but  free,  in  opposition  to  bondage — the 
bondage  indicated  in  Romans  vii. 

Let  our  readers  underline  the  words  "I,"  "me," 
and  "  my,"  in  the  last  half  of  the  seventh  chapter, 
and  he  will  not  find  it  hard  to  see  how  a  man  ob- 
tains deliverance.  The  regenerate  man  is  in  him- 
self just  as  weak  as  the  unregenerate.  Hence,  we 
have  in  the  seventh  the  will  right,  but  power  lack- 
ing. In  the  eighth  this  power  is  found,  and  deliv- 
erance obtained. 

A  man,  after  conversion,  resolves  to  do  better,  to 
live  right,  and  makes  an  honest  effort  to  do  so,  but 
he  finds  that  his  resolutions  are  just  as  worthless  as 
ever.  His  trouble  is  that  he  has  not  realized  his 
weakness;  that  "without  me  ye  can  no  nothing." 
When  this  is  realized,  he  looks  out  of  himself  for 
power,  and  finds  this  in  the  indwelling  Spirit. 
When  by  faith  he  relies  upon  this  Spirit — walks  in 
the  Spirit — deliverance  is  found;  power,  not  his 
own,  but  Christ's,  sets  him  free  from  the  law  of  sin. 

Keeping  this  in  mind,  let  us  examine  Rom.  vii. 
as  to  the  conflict  of  the  two  natures. 

' '  For  I  know  that  in  me — that  is,  in  my  flesh — 
there  dwelleth  no  good  thing :  for  to  will  is  present 
with  me;  but  how  to  perform -that  which  is  good  I 
find  not  ....  now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not  it  is 
no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me." 


228  ATONEMENT. 

Here  Paul  attributes  failure  to  the  old  man — the 
flesh — that  still  dwells  in  him. 
Then  he  shows  the  conflict. 

"I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward 
man.  >  > 

The  new  man,  the  sinless  man,  is  all  right,  and 
delights  in  the  law  of  God,  but — 

UI  see  another  law  in  my  members  (the  flesh) 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing 
me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my 
members. ' ' 

u  So  then  with  the  mind  /  myself  serve  the  law 
of  God;  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin." 

In  the  beginning  he  identifies  himself  with  the 
old  man  ("in  me — that  is,  in  my  flesh"}.  In  the 
close  he  links  himself  with  the  new  man  (UI  my- 
self, ....  but  with  the  flesh").  Another  key  to 
the  deliverance  itself. 

SECTION  IV. — The  Nature  of  the  Change. 

The  verses  just  examined  help  us  to  understand 
the  nature  of  the  change — "the  law  of  sin  which  is 
in  my  members" 

All  through  the  Bible  man  is  represented  as  a 
triune  being,  possessing  body,  soul,  and  spirit. 

"Your  whole  spirit,  and  soul,  and  body." — i 
Thess.  v.  23. 

This  gives  us  the  distinction  between  man  and 
the  brute.  An  animal,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
has  a  soul  (not  soul  in  the  popular  sense,  not  an 


NEW  BIRTH.  229 

immortal  soul,  but  a  soul  in  the  Bible  sense  of  that 
word). 

"Every  creature  in  which  there  is  life." — 
Gen.  i.  30. 

This  is,  in  the  Hebrew,  "living  soul."  This, 
with  other  texts,  plainly  affirms  the  possession  of  a 
soul — a  nephesh — by  the  animal.  It  never  affirms 
that  it  has  a  spirit.  Ecclesiastes  iii.  21,  may  seem 
an  exception,  but  is  not  really  so.  The  book  is 
man's  voice,  not  God's.  It  is  an  inspired  picture 
of  what  Solomon's  "wisdom"  taught  him,  but  it 
is  not  a  revelation  from  God  (see  i.  17).  In  Eccle- 
siastes spirit  is  used  in  its  primary  sense  of  breath. 

A  plant  has  life;  but  in  harmony  with  the  law  of 
the  Conditioned,  an  animal  has  all  that  the  plant 
has,  and  something  added.  What  is  this?  The 
Bible  answers,  a  soul.  The  instinct,  intelligence, 
memory,  affection,  and  will  of  the  brute,  is  certainly 
not  the  result  of  its  material  organization,  however 
intimate  the  connection  of  the  body  with  their  ex- 
pression. They  are  the  phenomena  of  soul.  Man 
has  all  that  the  brute  has,  and  something  added. 
What  is  this?  An  immortal  spirit. 

The  soul  is  the  seat  of  the  affections,  appetites, 
and  desires.  The  spirit,  of  the  judgment  and  rea- 
son. This  last  the  brute  has  not. 

In  the  fall,  every  part  of  the  man  became  de- 
praved. Hence,  the  body  became  "corrupt,"  the 
soul  "sensual,"  the  spirit  "devilish." 

Man  has  been  likened  to  the  old  tabernacle.  The 
body  the  outer  court,  the  soul  the  holy  place,  the 


230  ATONEMENT. 

spirit  the  holy  of  holies.  It  was  in  this  holiest — 
that  in  the  tabernacle,  God  had  his  dwelling  place; 
and  in  the  holiest  in  man,  God  ought  to  dwell.  As 
the  sad  result  of  the  fall,  God  was  dethroned,  and 
the  devil  usurped  his  place.  Reigning  there,  he 
blinds  the  mind,  darkens  the  understanding,  and,  as 
the  God  of  this  world,  leads  men  captive  at  Iris  will. 
For  this  reason  the  unsaved  man  is  a  "  child  of  the 
devil,"  while  his  spirit  is  defiled,  polluted, — "dev- 
ilish." 

In  regeneration  there  is  no  change  in  the  body 
or  the  soul  (these  combined  form  the  flesh),  it  being 
the  spirit  that  is  quickened.  The  unclean  spirit 
goes  out  of  the  man.  This  alone,  however,  does 
not  save.  God's  Spirit  enters,  so  that  God  has  re- 
sumed his  place  in  the  inner  holy,  dwelling  there 
as  the  abiding  Comforter. 

In  the  new  birth,  the  spirit  is  regenerated  and 
made  as  pure  as  God  is  pure,  the  very  moment  the 
man  believes.  But  the  body  is  unchanged;  hence, 
"the  law  of  sin"  is  in  "my  members." 

We  know  the  intimate  connection  between  a 
man's  body  and  his  desires,  lusts,  etc.  The  body 
being  unchanged,  these  remain,  even  in  the  be- 
liever; he  is  a  "man  of  like  passions"  as  others. 
Not  only  natural,  but  acquired  appetite  remains. 
Take,  for  example,  intemperance  —  the  appetite 
that  controls  so  many.  Drunkenness  is  as  much  a 
physical  disease  as  consumption,  and  the  diseased 
organs  remain  diseased  after  conversion,  so  that  the 
appetite  is  there.  Grace,  by  '  'the  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
life  in  Christ,"  gives  power  to  overcome,  when  this 


NEW  BIRTH.  231 

is  relied  upon  by  faith,  so  that  none  need  fall.  But 
the  appetite  being  there,  where  there  is  self-reli- 
ance the  man  may  fall,  even  after  being  regen- 
erated. Hence,  Paul  says  : 

"  I  keep  under  my  body  and  bring  it  into  subjec- 
tion." 

"Mortify  your  members  which  are  upon  the 
earth." 

This  conflict  endures  during  life.  If  we  feed  the 
' '  old  man, "  it  becomes  strong  in  our  experience,  and 
our  religious  life  is  feeble.  To  starve  the  old,  and 
feed  the  new,  is  the  secret  of  all  Christian  living. 
To  neglect  the  new,  and  live  only  to  gratify  the  old, 
is  the  way  to  failure  and  shame. 

It  is  plain  that  fitness  for  heaven  can  only  come 
by  full  deliverance  from  sin;  hence,  we  must  get 
rid  of  the  flesh;  and  so  Paul  points  to  the  "re- 
demption of  the  body"  as  the  final  work  that 
brings  fully  into  the  Son's  place  by  destroying  the 
flesh. 

At  death,  the  spirit  being  pure,  being  the  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  goes  at  once  to  be  with  Christ. 
In  the  resurrection,  the  power  of  this  Spirit  extends 
to  the  body,  which  is  "changed  in  a  moment,  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye."  Then,  a  redeemed 
spirit  united  to  a  redeemed  body,  the  last  vestige  of 
sin  will  be  forever  swept  away;  and  redeemed,  de- 
livered, saved  from  sin  as  well  as  from  its  curse, 
we  will  be  presented  "faultless"  before  the  pres- 
ence of  his  glory. 

Any  scheme  of  salvation  which  does  not  make 


232  ATONEMENT. 

provision  for  deliverance  from  sin  as  well  as  its 
curse,  falls  short  of  God's  thought  and  God's  plan. 
Redemption  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  through 
the  death  and  sufferings  of  Jesus.  Redemption 
from  the  power  of  the  devil,  when  he  is  driven  out 
from  the  temple,  and  God's  Spirit  and  God's  glory 
fill  the  house.  Redemption  from  sin  by  the  work 
of  the  SpiritV;/  us  and  the  intercession  of  Jesus  for 
us.  And  final,  full,  complete  deliverance,  in  the 
redemption  of  the  body. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

FEET  WASHING. 

All  through  the  Bible  runs  the  " scarlet  line," 
but  side  by  side  with  the  truth  as  to  the  blood,  we 
find  the  water.  The  one  is  as  important  as  the 
other;  but,  alas  !  the  water  has  been  sadly  mis- 
placed in  the  teaching  of  Christendom,  and  con- 
fusion has  come  in,  to  the  ruin  of  souls  and  to  the 
discouragement  of  believers. 

SECTION  I.  —  "That  he  might  sanctify  and 
cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word. ' ' 
— Bph.  v.  2,6. 

This  gives  us  a  key  to  unfold  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing of  the  water. 

Remember,  it  is  the  church,  not  the  sinner,  that 
is  thus  cleansed,  that  it  may  be  presented  a  glorious 
church  without  uspot  or  wrinkle."  It  stands,  then, 
as  God's  provision  for  the  cleansing  of  the  church, 
being  connected  with  the  great  truth  of  our  re- 
demption from  sin. 

The  verse  literally  reads,  "with  the  laver  of 
water  in  the  word"  (TM  Xourpco  TOL>  uSaroz  i.v  fry  par  c). 
It  being  Xourpov  (loutroii),  and  not  Aooa)  (louoo},  it  is, 
as  we  have  given  it,  a  laver  or  bath.  Of  what 
laver  is  he  here  speaking  ?  We  find  but  one  in  the 


234  ATONEMENT. 

Scriptures,  that  which  stood  in  the  court  of  the 
tabernacle,  and  in  which  the  feet  of  the  priests 
were  washed  every  time  they  went  into  the  Holy 
Place. 

Entering  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  the  in- 
closure  within  which  stood  the  tabernacle  proper, 
the  first  thing  encountered  was  the  "brazen  altar." 
Here  the  sacrifice  was  offered,  here  the  burnt-offer- 
ing was  burnt,  here  we  meet  with  the  blood  that 
was  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  At  the  altar 
the  question  of  sin  was  settled,  and  atonement  was 
made.  Passing  by  the  altar,  the  next  thing  en- 
countered was  the  laver  with  its  water. 

At  the  altar  we  have  the  blood  making  atone- 
ment; at  the  laver,  water  for  the  cleansing  of  the 
feet.  Paul  says,  this  laver  is  now  "in  the  word," 
water  being  a  symbol  of  the  word.  What  was  done 
in  the  type  by  the  water,  is  done  spiritually  by  the 
word  in  the  antitype. 

SECTION  II. — The  thirteenth  chapter  of  John. 

The  place  of  this  scripture  in  the  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament  has  been  largely  overlooked.  We 
read  that  Jesus — 

'  *  Poured  water  into  a  basin,  and  began  to  wash 
the  disciples'  feet." 

This  was  a  common  act  of  hospitality,  done 
usually  by  a  servant.  Where  sandals  were  worn, 
the  feet  became  hot  and  dusty  in  traveling,  so  that 
washing  the  feet  was  simply  ministering  to  the 
comfort  of  the  guest.  So  common  was  it,  that  the 


FEET  WASHING.  235 

Pharisee  was  justly  reproached  for  neglecting  it, 
when  the  woman  supplied  his  lack  of  service  by 
her  tears. 

"Then  cometh  he  to  Simon  Peter;  and  Peter 
saith  unto  him,  Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet?" 

It  was  a  matter  of  astonishment  to  Peter  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  should  take  a  servant's  place  and  come 
to  minister  to  his  necessity.  It  was  something  he 
could  not  understand. 

"Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  What  I  do 
thou  knowest  not  now;  but  thou  shalt  know  here- 
after." 

This  answer  of  the  Lord  Jesus  merits  close  in- 
spection. If  it  was  to  teach  a  lesson  of  humility 
to  his  disciples,  Peter  could,  and  did,  understand  it. 
If  it  was  simply  the  local  custom,  or  the  institu- 
tion of  an  ordinance,  Peter  could,  and  would,  have 
understood.  The  Savior's  words  imply  a  spiritual 
meaning,  not  discerned  by  Peter  at  the  time.  On 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  they  should  all  be 
"filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,"  all  things  would  be 
brought  to  their  minds;  and  then,  with  minds 
spiritually  illumined,  the  meaning  would  be  under- 
stood. Peter,  with  characteristic  impulsiveness, 
says : 

"Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet." 

Like  many  a  Christian  to-day,  Peter  has  no 
thought  of  the  Lord's  will,  but  simply  what  he 
himself  thinks  is  right.  Jesus  answers  him  : 

"  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me." 


236  ATONEMENT. 

Notice  this  language.  Whatever  the  spiritual 
import  of  the  washing,  Peter's  part  with  Christ  de- 
pended upon  its  being  done.  Not  his  part  in 
Christ,  but  "with"  The  Greek  preposition  here 
used  implies  fellowship,  association. 

The  believer's  part  in  Christ — in  the  benefits  of 
this  great  atoning  sacrifice  —  depends  upon  his 
faith.  His  part  with  Christ — his  fellowship,  com- 
munion, religious  joy — depends  upon  his  obedience. 
This  he  may  lose  at  any  time.  Salvation,  and  the 
joy  of  salvation,  are  separate  and  distinct  from 
each  other.  The  one  depends  upon  the  faithfulness 
of  Christ,  the  other  upon  our  own  faithfulness. 
Thus  we  may  lose  the  one  without  losing  the  other. 
David  prays,  "restore  unto  me " — not  my  salvation, 
he  had  not  lost  that — but  the  ujoy  of  my  salvation." 

To  maintain  our  part  with  Christ,  we  must  let 
him  wash  our  feet — that  is,  our  walk,  our  life,  our 
ways. 

Peter,  like  many  a  Christian  to-day,  wants  to  go 
to  the  other  extreme: 

ulvord,  not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and 
my  head." 

This  coming  to  be  washed  all  over  again — to  be 
reconverted — is  to  ignore  what  has  been  done  al- 
ready, and  thus  to  undervalue  Christ's  work,  and 
cast  a  doubt  upon  its  efficiency.  It  also  is  a  fail- 
ure to  appreciate  the  nature  of  the  need — why  the 
feet  must  be  washed.  Jesus  answers : 

"He  that  is  washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash 
his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit;  and  ye  are  clean, 


FEET  WASHING.  237 

but  not  all.  For  he  knew  who  should  betray  him; 
therefore  said  he,  ye  are  not  all  clean." 

This  does  not  mean  that  Judas  was  unclean 
physically,  but  that  he  was  not  regenerated — not 
spiritually  clean.  This  is  the  only  exposition  that 
gives  any  force  to  the  ' '  therefore. ' '  The  betrayal 
of  Christ  could  only  be  evidence  of  spiritual  un- 
cleanness. 

The  illustration  is  a  simple  one.  "He  that  is 
bathed"  On  the  way  from  the  bath  to  the  house,  a 
man  would  soil  his  feet  through  contact  with  the 
earth. "  He  would  not  return  to  bathe  again ;  that 
would  keep  him  all  the  time  going  to  and  fro.  No, 
he  "  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet."  And  even 
when  he  needs  to  have  his  feet  washed,  he  is  still 
"clean  every  zvhit"  What  a  precious  thought  to 
the  believer.  Amid  all  our  failures  and  short-com- 
ings, whatever  our  actual  condition,  we  are  in 
Christ — not  in  ourselves — "clean  every  whit." 

We  must  remember  that  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween our  standing  and  state. 

Our  standing  is  what  we  are  in  Christ,  what  the 
work  of  the  lyord  Jesus  has  made  us  in  God's  sight 
— "clean  every  whit." 

Our  state  is  what  we  are  in  our  actual  experience 
as  individuals.  In  this  life,  because  of  the  work- 
ings of  the  ' '  flesh, ' '  our  standing  and  state  do  not 
correspond,  but  after  the  redemption  of  the  body 
they  will.  For  this  reason,  because  we  find  sin  in 
heart  and  life,  while  clean  every  whit,  we  need  to 
have  our  feet,  our  walk,  cleansed  from  the  daily  sin 
and  uncleanness. 


238  ATONEMENT. 

"Clean  every  whit" — that  is,  our  standing,  the 
result  of  the  cleansing  by  means  of  the  blood. 

"The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin." 

There  is  no  modification  of  that  word  "«//." 
And,  thank  God,  it  is  true  of  all  believers,  and  al- 
ways true.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  the  dogma  of 
sinless  perfection  give  to  this  verse  a  meaning  that 
robs  believers  of  their  birthright,  and  forces  it  into 
conflict  with  what  follows. 

They  make  it  a  cleansing  from  "  inbred  corrup- 
tion, ' '  so  that  they  reach  a  state  in  which  they  never 
sin.  This  confounds  what  Christ  does  for  us,  with 
what  the  Spirit  does  in  us,  hence,  there  is  utter 
failure  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  cleansing 
with,  or  by,  the  blood.  The  blood  was  shed  to 
atone  for  sin  actually  committed;  it  was  the  meet- 
ing of  the  claims  of  God  against  us.  This  blood 
was  not  applied  to  the  people,  but  presented  to  God ; 
and  on  the  ground  of  the  value  of  that  blood,  sin  is 
remitted,  blotted  out,  removed  as  far  as  the  east 
from  the  west.  The  blood  covers — hides — the  sin, 
so  that  we  are,  in  God's  sight,  "  clean  every  whit." 
The  cleansing  is  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  judicial— 
and  not  that  we  are  clean  in  ourselves,  for  the  next 
verse  says: 

"If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  our- 
selves." 

The  tense  shows  that  the  cleansing  is  a  perfected 
one,  and  always  and  at  all  times  true  of  the  be- 
liever. "  From  all  sin  " — that  is,  from  every  sin  of 


FEET  WASHING.  239 

the  entire  life.  If  there  is  one  sin  Christ  did  not 
atone  for,  either  Christ  must  die  again  or  the  soul 
must  be  lost. 

The  work  of  the  blood  is  never  repeated;  it  is 
done  "once  for  all." 

' '  The  worshipers  once  purged  should  have  no 
more  conscience  of  sins." 

' '  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  through 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  once  for 
all." 

"For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever 
them  that  are  sanctified." — Heb.  x.  14. 

The  whole  argument  of  Hebrews  x.  is  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  cleansing,  in  opposition  to  the  imperfect 
cleansing  of  Judaism. 

Believers  ought  never  to  lose  sight  of  this  truth. 
At  all  times,  under  every  circumstance,  whatever 
the  character  of  the  life  or  of  the  feelings,  it  is  al- 
ways true  of  the  believer  that  he  is  "clean  every 
whit."  Even  when  we  are  the  most  out  of  com- 
munion, and  spiritual  declension  has  brought  * '  lean- 
ness "  to  the  soul,  it  is  still  true  that  we  are  "  clean 
every  whit. ' '  There  ought  to  be  no  sin  on  the  con- 
science, because  that  the  worshipers  once  purged 
should  have  no  more  conscience  of  sins. 

But  while  there  is  no  sin  on  the  conscience,  while 
we  are  "clean  every  whit,"  while  the  blood  per- 
fectly cleanses,  there  is  sin  in  the  flesh.  For  this 
reason  we  need  to  have  our  feet — our  walk,  our  life 
— cleansed  from  this  sin. 

"Every   branch   in   me   that   beareth   fruit,     he 


240  ATONEMENT. 

purgeth  (cleanseth)  it  that  it  may  bring  forth  more 
fruit." — John  xv.  3. 

How  is  this  cleansing  accomplished? 

' '  Ye  are  clean  through  the  word. ' ' 

4 '  Wherewithal  shall  a  young  man  cleanse  his  way 
(feet),  by  taking  heed  thereto,  according  to  thy 
word." — Ps.  cxix.  9. 

u  Sanctify  them  through  thy  word."- -John 
xvii.  17. 

This  cleansing  by  the  word  is  constant.  How 
does  Jesus  wash  his  disciples'  feet?  Here  is  a 
young  convert;  in  the  ardor  of  his  first  love  he 
says,  ' '  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  "  The 
Lord  places  the  Bible  in  his  hands,  as  ( '  the  man  of 
his  counsel,"  the  guide  of  his  life.  He  begins  to 
study  the  Scriptures;  as  he  reads,  he  sees  that  his 
life  is  not  in  harmony  with  this  or  that  precept. 
The  moment  he  discerns  this,  or  has  it  impressed 
upon  his  conscience — as  he  thus  sees  the  wrong  in 
his  life — it  is  Christ  coming  to  wash  his  feet.  If 
he  lets  Christ  wash  his  feet  (his  walk)  by  putting 
away  the  wrong — by  yielding  obedience  to  the 
truth — his  part  with  Christ  remains.  But  if  he 
fails  to  obey,  fails  to  do  what  the  word  requires — 
refuses  to  let  Christ  wash  his  feet — his  part  with 
Christ  is  lost,  the  joy  of  his  salvation  is  gone. 

SECTION  III. — Confession. 

But  perhaps  many  are  asking,  if  a  believer  loses 
his  part  with  Christ,  how  is  he  to  be  restored  ?  In 
reply,  we  say  that  God's  remedy  is  confession. 


FKET  WASHING.  241 

"If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to 
forgive  us  our  sins  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  un- 
righteousness."— i  John  i.  9. 

There  is  a  great  difference  between  praying  for 
forgiveness  and  confessing  the  sin.  Of  course 
prayer  may  carry  with  it  confession,  and  so  amount 
to  the  same  thing;  but  confession  is  the  remedy. 
But  why  confession?  Because  it  is  the  true  ex- 
pression of  that  state  which  God  requires.  It  is  as 
sons  that  the  Father's  face  is  hidden  from  us,  and 
communion  interrupted.  It  is  much  harder  for  a 
child  to  confess  a  wrong  than  to  ask  forgiveness. 
To  ask  forgiveness  does  not  always  imply  a  just  ap- 
preciation of  the  wrong,  and  simply  shows  sorrow 
for  the  loss  of  communion  and  a  desire  for  its 
restoration.  Confession  goes  beyond  this.  The 
essence  of  confession  is  the  self-judgment  that  it 
necessitates.  We  must  see  it  to  be  a  sin,  drag  it 
into  the  light  and  judge  it  as  a  sin,  before  we  con- 
fess it.  Confession  involves  self-judgment,  and  this 
is  God's  remedy  where  communion  has  been  lost. 

Reader,  are  you  in  the  gloom,  living  without 
spiritual  joy?  Then  the  moment  the  sin  is  con- 
fessed that  brought  the  cloud  between  you  and  the 
Father,  that  moment  the  intercession  of  Jesus 
avails,  and  all  is  forgiven.  The  hand  of  love  brushes 
away  the  clouds. 

As  Christ  washes  our  feet,  so  we  ought  to  wash 
one  another's. 

: '  If  any  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which 
are  spiritual,   restore  such  a  one  in  the  spirit  of 
17 


242  ATONEMENT. 

meekness,  considering  thyself,  lest  them  also  be 
tempted." — Gal.  vi.  i. 

If  we  see  wrong  in  a  brother,  the  law  of  Christ 
obligates  us  to  wash  his  feet.  We  must  not  come 
in  the  spirit  of  censure,  but  of  love.  Neither  must 
we  wash  his  feet  with  our  opinions,  but  with  the 
word.  Our  opinions  may  be  wrong;  we  have  no 
right  to  judge  another  by  these.  We  must  bring 
the  word  to  bear,  and  if  this  is  plain,  and  we  do  it 
in  love,  it  will  do  its  work. 

If  he  lets  us  wash  his  feet,  we  are  drawn  close  to 
each  other;  but  if  he  refuses,  a  cloud  comes  between 
us,  and  fellowship  is  interrupted. 

Then,  confession  alone  can  restore  the  fellow- 
ship. 

May  we  be  found  ever  washing  each  other's  feet; 
but  above  all,  willing;  and  eager  to  have  Christ  wash 
our  feet,  that  we  may  not  only  have  part  in  him, 
but  always,  and  at  all  times,  an  unclouded  part  with 
him. 


• 

' 

- 


CHAPTER  XV. 

SONSHIP. 

Ill  this  part'  of  our  book  we  are  discussing  the 
application  of  the  atonement.  This  embraces  more 
than  the  extent.  Hence,  it  will  be  in  place  to  con- 
sider the  question  of  Sonship,  in  its  bearing  upon 
the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  standing  of  the  Chris- 
tian. 

SECTION  I.  —  Who  are  Sons? 

It  is  not  a  Bible  thought  that  God  is  the  Father 
of  all  men,  and  therefore  that  all  men  are  brethren. 
An  unconverted  man  is  never,  in  any  sense,  God's 
son.  It  is  strange,  when  we  remember  what  the  re- 
lation implies,  that  this  truth  is  not  more  generally 
understood. 

The  only  text  that  can  be  quoted  as  teaching  the 
sonship  of  a  sinner  is  Acts  xvii.  28.  But  here, 
Paul  is  quoting  from  a  heathen  poet,  not  to  prove 
the  Fatherhood  of  God,  but  as  an  argument  drawn 
from  their  own  writings  to  enforce  the  personality 
and  spirituality  of  God. 

For  an  unconverted  man  to  look  up  and  say, 
u  My  Father,''  is  to  claim  a  relationship  to  which 
he  has  no  title. 

When  the  Jews  came  to  Jesus  upon  one  occasion, 
they  said : 


244  ATONEMENT. 

"We  have  one  Father,  even  God." — John  viii.  41. 

Did  Jesus  recognize  the  relationship?  No;  for 
he  at  once  repudiates  it — 

"If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me; 
....  ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil." 

He  thus  assigns  them  a  different  paternity.  Son- 
ship  is  one  of  the  distinctive  blessings  that  come  to 
us  through  Christ. 

"When  the  fullness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 

sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 

the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  are  under  the  law, 

4hat  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." — Gal. 

iv.  4,  5- 

' '  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." — Rom. 
viii.  16. 

The  Spirit  does  not  bear  witness  with  the  spirit 
of  the  sinner,  that  he  is  a  son. 

Many  "isms"  build  their  arguments  upon  the 
universal  Fatherhood  of  God.  These  arguments 
are  of  no  force  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  a  sinner 
is  not  a  son.  But  John  certainly  places  the  whole 
matter  beyond  dispute,  so  far  as  the  Bible  may  be 
proof,  when  he  says  : 

' '  In  this  the  children  of  God  are  manifest,  and 
the  children  of  the  devil." — i  John  iii.  10. 

He  here  divides  men  into  two  classes,  only  one  of 
which  are  God's  children.  We  repeat  it,  therefore, 
with  emphasis,  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that  the 
sinner  is  a  son. 


SONSHIP.  245 

Let  us  try  and  see  the  force  and  beauty  of  this 
relationship,  and  the  privileges  it  carries  with  it. 
And  while  we  endeavor  thus  to  do,  may  the  Holy 
Spirit  illuminate  our  understanding,  that  we  may 
see  the  wondrous  glory,  the  inestimable  blessing  of 
sonship.  In  Paul's  writings  a  son  is  contrasted  with 
a  servant,  and  this  contrast  helps  to  bring  out  the 
value  of  sonship. 

SECTION  II. — Sonship  is  an  eternal  relation, 
a  Servants  is  temporary. 

*  *  The  servant  abideth  not  in  the  house  forever : 
but  the  Son  abideth  ever." — John  viii.  35. 

Servants  may  come  and  go,  but  the  son  remains. 
A  servant  may  cease  to  be  a  servant,  but  a  son  can 
not  give  up  his  sonship.  "Once  a  son  always  a 
son."  Being  born,  we  can  not  be  unborn;  and  as 
the  relationship  is  founded,  not  upon  the  service 
rendered,  but  upon  the  birth,  it  can  not  be  dissolved. 
It  is  permanent,  inalienable;  "the  son  abideth 
ever."  A  boy  may  be  a  disobedient  son,  he  is  still 
a  son.  Being  sick  does  not  change  a  sheep  into  a 
goat.  Being  willful  does  not  change  a  son  into  a 
servant,  or  cause  the  relationship  to  cease. 

' '  Once  a  son  always  a  son."  Nothing  can  change 
this  or  altar  it.  How  different  with  a  servant! 
When  he  ceases  to  be  of  service,  or  to  render  a  re- 
turn for  his  wages,  he  can  be  dismissed  at  the  will 
of  his  master  at  any  time.  There  is  no  such  per- 
manency in  the  relation,  that  it  can  not  be  broken. 
But,  we  are  "no  more  servants,  but  sons." 


46  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  III. — The  Son  enjoys  his  place  and 
privileges  in  the  Fathers  house  because  of  his 
birth ;  a  Servant  because  of  his  service. 

It  is  because  we  have  been  born  again,  that  we 
enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  gospel.  It  is  not  on  the 
ground  of  any  merit  in  us,  or  of  any  good  that  we 
do,  in  whole  or  in  part,  that  we  have  u  a  title  clear 
to  mansions  in  the  skies."  Neither  is  it  because 
we  have  been  faithful  that  we  enter  heaven  at  last. 
On  any  such  ground,  none  of  us  could  be  saved. 
It  is  simply  because  of  union  with  Christ,  because 
born  again,  that  they  are  ours. 

When  God  appeared  unto  Moses  in  the  burning 
bush,  he  told  him  to  put  off  his  shoes ;  but  when 
the  prodigal  comes  home,  the  first  thing  is  to  put 
shoes  on  his  feet.  Why?  In  oriental  countries  a 
servant  must  remove  his  shoes  when  coming  into 
the  presence  of  his  master;  so  that  Moses,  the  rep- 
resentative of  law,  puts  off  his  shoes.  The  law 
gives  us  a  servant's  place,  making  our  blessing  con- 
ditional upon  our  obedience — the  reward  for  service 
rendered.  But  grace  brings  into  a  son's  place;  so 
that  while  the  law  puts  off  the  shoes,  grace  puts 
them  on. 

A  son  is  properly  required  to  be  obedient;  but  he 
is  a  son,  not  because  of  this  obedience,  but  because 
of  his  birth.  He  is  obedient  because  he  is  a  son, 
living  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  that  a  lov- 
ing father  constantly  bestows.  How  important  to 
our  peace  to  remember  this! 

If  obedience  be  a  condition  of  salvation,   none 


SONSHIP.  247 

can  be  saved;  for  all  fail  in  their  obedience.  If  a 
condition,  the  least  failure  forfeits  the  title,  as  there 
is  no  yielding  in  a  condition.  In  case  of  failure, 
we  are  left  without  hope,  because  the  blood  can  not 
avail.  If  the  blood  avails,  then  the  obedience 
ceases  to  be  a  condition.  A  condition  is  something 
that  must  be  complied  with  to  secure  the  salvation; 
and  failure  works  ruin  to  the  soul.  But  all  have 
failed;  so  that  if  obedience  is  the  condition  of  sal- 
vation, all  are  lost. 

Obedience  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  the  Bible 
never  teaches,  but  obedience  as  the  evidence  and 
fruit  of  the  faith,  the  Bible  always  proclaims. 
There  may  be  degrees  in  fruit,  but  no  such  degrees 
are  possible  in  a  condition. 

How  strange  that  men  do  not  see  that  it  is  not 
because  we  are  faithful,  but  because  of  the  efficacy 
of  Christ's  work,  that  we  are  saved!  As  none  are 
faithful,  all  being  "unprofitable  servants,"  on  any 
such  ground  how  could  we  have  peace  in  believing, 
or  enjoy  the  assurance  of  faith?  The  word  does 
not  say,  Believe,  and  if  you  prove  faithful  you  shall 
be  saved.  But,  "  Believe,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
No  perhaps,  but  a  blessed  certainty!  For  one  to 
believe  and  be  lost  would  be  for  God's  word  to 
prove  untrue.  No!  In  all  the  songs  of  the  re- 
deemed in  glory,  not  one  is  singing  "worthy  am  I," 
but  "worthy  the  Lamb!"  All  the  glory  being 
ascribed  to  him. 

A  son  is  required  to  be  obedient;  and  his  favor 
with  the  father,  his  influence  in  the  family  and  with 
the  neighbors,  his  own  happiness  and  rewards,  all 


248  ATONEMENT, 

depend  upon  that  obedience.  Still,  this  does  not 
make  him  a  son,  that  comes  from  his  birth  alone. 

Men  seem  to  think  that  unless  heaven  is  the  prize 
of  obedience,  there  is  no  motive  to  right  living. 
As  a  dear  brother  said  recently,  "  If  a  man  is  saved 
once  for  all,  then  he  can  do  as  he  pleases;  live 
whatever  kind  of  life  he  wishes."  Our  reply  was, 
u  Most  certainly,  he  is  left  to  the  enjoyment  of 
Christian  liberty;  but  you  mistake  in  supposing  he 
will  please  to  do  wrong.  That  would  be  to  make 
the  new  birth  of  no  value,  and  to  ignore  the 
grandest  motives  in  the  world. ' ' 

If  one  truth  is  more  emphatic  than  another,  it  is 
that  the  tree  must  be  made  good  to  produce  good 
fruit.  But  after  the  tree  has  been  made  good,  the 
good  fruit  is  the  inevitable  result.  If  a  man  is  born 
again,  the  tree  has  been  made  good ;  and  the  good 
fruit  follows.  To  believe  that  a  child  of  God  will 
freely  and  voluntarily  choose  an  evil  life,  is  a  dis- 
honor to  Christ's  work,  making  it  of  no  value.  If 
his  affection  and  will  have  been  changed,  so  that  he 
is  a  new  creature,  the  certain  result  will  be  good  fruit. 

u  Hereby  we  do  know  that  we  know  him,  if  we 
keep  his  commandments." — i  John  ii.  3. 

'  *  As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  the  sons  of  God." — Rom.  viii.  14. 

So  certain  is  this,  that  to  do  otherwise  is  an  evi- 
dence of  an  unregenerate  heart. 

' '  They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not  of 
us,  for  if  they  had  been  of  us  they  would  no  doubt 
have  continued  with  us." — i  John  ii.  19. 


SONSHIP.  249 

The  words  u  no  doubt "  are  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators. The  original  reads,  "they  would  have  con- 
tinued." 

It  is  for  this  cause  that  obedience,  being  the  fruit 
of  the  faith,  is  an  evidence  of  sonship. 

He  can  do  as  he  pleases,  so  far  as  his  title  to  sal- 
vation is  concerned,  that  is  true;  but  he  will  please 
to  do  his  Master's  will. 

11  If  a  man  love  me  he  will  keep  my  words." — 
John  xiv.  23. 

Not  he  must,  but  he  will. 

Then  again,  this  objection  ignores  the  strongest 
of  all  motives.  The  gospel  appeals  to  love  as  the 
motive  to  obedience. 

A  man  has  a  mortgage  on  another  man's  property. 
He  requires  this  man  to  do  something,  and  threat- 
ens, in  case  of  failure,  to  foreclose  the  mortgage. 
The  man  being  thus  in  his  power,  may  do  what  is 
required  of  him;  but  he  acts  reluctantly,  his  heart 
is  not  in  the  service.  So,  if  we  obey  simply  to 
escape  the  consequences  of  our  sins,  it  is  only 
formal;  the  heart  is  not  enlisted,  and  God,  who  de- 
sires heart  service,  sees  no  value  in  it. 

Again,  a  man  offers  a  certain  sum  of  money  for  a 
service  he  desires.  Here  the  service  is  rendered, 
not  from  love,  but  for  gain.  A  servant  gives  no 
more,  as  a  rule.  This  is  not  the  obedience  that 
God  desires. 

But  here  is  a  man  who  saved  the  life  of  another, 
and  in  so  doing  lost  an  arm.  He  desires  a  service; 
and  as  the  man  looks  at  the  armless  sleeve,  he 


250  ATONEMENT. 

thinks,  "he  lost  that  arm  for  me."  How  it  stirs 
his  heart!  how  gladly  he  renders  the  service!  It  is 
heart  service,  the  best  of  all.  So  the  Lord  Jesus 
comes  to  his  people  and  says,  ' '  I  have  saved  you ; 
that  question  is  settled;  now,  if  ye  love  me,  keep  my 
commandments!  "  The  believer  remembers  Geth- 
semane  and  Calvary.  He  believes  in  the  full  salva- 
tion bought  by  such  a  price.  He  feels  that  Jesus 
is  precious — O  how  precious!  He  says,  "I  love 
him,  because  he  first  loved  me;  "  and  with  his  heart 
overflowing  with  love  and  gratitude,  gladly,  eagerly 
consecrates  himself  to  do  the  Lord's  will.  What 
stronger  motive  can  we  find  than  this  ?  Love  has 
a  thousand  hands  and  feet;  is  eager  to  serve  the 
loved  one;  finds  its  highest  joy  in  the  favor  of 
its  Lord.  Away  with  the  thought  that  a  Christian 
will  please 'to  do  wrong  unless  Jesus  stands  over 
him  with  a  whip!  Such  thought  fails  to. under- 
stand that  faith  which  works  by  love. 

Why  can  not  we  stand  in  the  sunshine,  coming 
out  from  the  shadows  of  Sinai  ?  Why  not  stand  in 
the  full  assurance  of  the  "no  condemnation,"  and 
then,  because  we  love  him,  consecrate  heart  and 
life  to  him  ? 

Under  the  law,  at  certain  seasons,  the  slaves  be- 
came free;  but  there  was  a  provision  that  the  slave 
who  "  loved  his  master  "  might  go  before  the  judges, 
and  having  his  ear  pierced  with  an  awl  at  the  door- 
post of  his  master's  house,  thus  give  himself  to  per- 
petual servitude.  If  the  Lord  has  given  liberty  to 
the  captive,  we  do  not  want  that  liberty  that  we 
may  do  wrong;  but,  loving  our  Master  would  bring 


SONSHIP.  251 

ourselves  to  have  our  ears  pierced,  that  we  may  be 
the  L,ord's  forever.  Such  is  the  service — the  obe- 
dience of  love — of  the  Christian.  „-. 

SECTION  IV.—  A  Son  is  dear  to  the  Father,  a 
Servant^s  relation  implies  no  such  affection. 

How  proud  a  father  is  of  his  boy!  how  he  de- 
lights in  him!  what  affection  he  lavishes  upon  him! 
The  Christian  is  the  recipient  of  just  such  love. 

"He  that  toucheth  you  toucheth  the  apple  of  his 
eye."— Zech.  ii.  8. 

The  Father's  love  flows  out  with  a  tenderness  and 
a  fullness,  beyond  all  expression. 

You  have  seen  a  father  watching  his  child  in  its 
early  efforts  to  walk.  See  how  carefully  he  guards 
it!  How  his  heart  thrills  as  it  takes  a  few  tottering 
steps!  Even  so  our  heavenly  Father  is  watching 
the  efforts  of  his  feeble  little  ones  here.  And 
blessed  be  his  name,  his  hands  are  ever  near  us — 
the  hands  of  the  mighty  God  of  Jacob — to  keep  us 
from  harm. 

With  a  father's  heart  and  a  father's  hands  so  near, 
safe  is  the  Christian. 

The  child's  walk  is  very  imperfect.  His  gait 
is  unsteady.  Yet,  there  is  something  very  at- 
tractive to  the  watcher,  and  that  stirs  his  heart 
strangely.  The  father  does  not  think  of  the  fail- 
ures; he  looks  at  the  child's  weakness,  and  re- 
joices at  the  success  that  is  made.  The  honest  ef- 
forts, the  small  victories,  these  are  precious  in  God's 
sight. 


252  ATONEMENT. 

SECTION  V. — A  Son  is  an  heir,  a  Servant  is  not. 

The  glory  that  awaits  the  believer  can  not  be  told 
in  words.  It  is  by  being  made  a  son  that  he  be- 
comes an  heir.  A  servant  can  never,  by  his  work, 
become  an  heir.  Service  entitles  to  wages,  but 
these  are  always  the  equivalent  of  the  work  done. 
What  work  of  man  could  ever  merit  or  win 
heaven?  Is  it  not  preposterous  that  men  should 
dream  of  heaven  as  the  reward  of  obedience?  It 
either  exalts  men,  or  belittles  heaven.  Heaven  is 
never  promised,  never  obtained,  on  such  terms.  A 
servant's  place  entitles  to  a  servant's  wage,  but 
nothing  more. 

Birth — sonship — constitutes  us  heirs.  This  is 
the  only  Bible  ground  for  the  possession  of  the  in- 
heritance. "If  children,  then  heirs,"  but  never  if 
servants,  then  heirs. 

The  inheritance  is  to  be  enjoyed  only  by  God's 
children;  and  to  be  a  child  we  must  be  born  into 
the  family. 

This  inheritance,  this  glory,  is  the  hope  of  the 
Christian.  We  do  not  hope  for  salvation,  we  have 
that;  and  what  is  ours  in  present  possession  is 
not  an  object  of  hope.  We  have  salvation,  we  hope 
for  the  glory. 

This  heirship  not  only  gives  comfort  and  strength 
to  the  believer,  it  makes  us  the  subjects  of  peculiar 
care  on  the  Father's  part. 

4 '  To  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled, 
and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven  for 
you  (or  cfor  us^},  who  are  kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faith  unto  salvation." — i  Peter  i.  4,  5. 


SONSHIP.  253 

It  was  the  custom  to  keep  the  heir  in  a  strong 
fortress  until  the  time  he  entered  upon  his  inherit- 
ance. The  word  here  used  refers  to  this  custom. 
' *  Kept, "  as  in  a  fortress,  showing  him  to  be 
guarded  by  the  safeguards  the  father's  love  pro- 
vides. 

"  Kept,"  not  by  our  faithfulness,  but  by  the  power 
of  God;  and  surely  that  is  adequate  and  sufficient 
for  the  work.  If  he  can  not  keep,  he  can  not  save, 
as  the  keeping  is  implied  in  the  saving. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

PRESERVATION   OF  THE  SAINTS. 

The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we  have 
shown,  is  the  foundation  -of  the  Medium  Theology. 
In  this  chapter  we  wish  to  show  its  connection  with 
the  grand  truth  of  the  believer's  security  in  Christ. 

Two  positions  are  taken  in  the  Christian  world. 
One  that  a  man  is  saved  when  he  believes,  the  other 
that  a  man  may  trust  in  Christ,  and  yet  fall  away 
and  be  lost. 

We  hold  that  if  a  man  trusts  in  Christ  he  is  saved, 
which  is  not  true  if  there  is  any  danger  of  his  being 
lost,.  Hence,  if  a  believer  should  lose  his  soul, 
either  the  promises  of  the  Bible  never  were  his,  or 
else  they  are  not  true.  It  says,  ( '  Believe  on  the 
L,ord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shall  be  saved."  No 
perhaps,  no  other  condition,  but  an  absolute  prom- 
ise; believe,  and  "thou  shall  be  saved." 

We  find,  however,  that  a  Christian,  by  the  power 
of  u  the  flesh,"  may  fall  into  sin.  How  far  he  may 
backslide  we  dare  not  say,  as  no  one  can  draw  the 
line.  But  we  do  claim  that  if  the  man  is  truly  re- 
generate, even  when  he  is  farthest  from  Christ, 
faith  still  lingers  in  the  soul  and  Christ  still  is  pre- 
cious. He  is  not  happy  or  contented  in  his  wander- 
ings, and  sooner  or  later  the  prodigal  will  come 


PERSEVERANCE.  255 

back  home.  The  unclean  raven  went  out  of  the 
ark  never  to  return,  but  the  gentle  dove  came  back 
again  to  the  old  ark,  because  their  natures  were  dif- 
ferent; and  here  is  the  difference  between  the  regen- 
erate man  and  the  hypocrite,  or  the  self-deceived. 
As  the  word  of  God  so  plainly  teaches,  ( '  they  went 
out ' '  because  they  were  not  of  us. 

A  believer  may  sin,  and  not  be  lost.  David  and 
Peter  both  fell  into  grievous  sin,  but  they  did  not 
lose  their  souls,  for  they  are  both  in  heaven,  singing 
the  praises  of  Jesus,  and  rejoicing  in  the  value  of 
the  blood. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  enter  into  a  full  discus- 
sion of  the  doctrine,  but  simply  to  present  it  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  the  value  of  Christ's  work 
to  the  believer. 

SECTION  I.— Some  Arminian  texts  examined. 

We  will  examine  a  few  of  the  texts  relied  upon 
by  the  advocates  of  apostasy,  and  have  selected 
what  are  regarded  as  the  strongest.  When  properly 
understood,  it  will  be  found  that,  so  far  from  teach- 
ing apostasy,  they  present  the  very  opposite — truth. 

First.  ' '  When  the  unclean  spirit  is  gone  out  of 
a  man,  he  walketh  through  dry  places,  seeking  rest, 
and  findeth  none.  Then  he  saith,  I  will  return 
into  my  house  from  whence  I  came  out';  and  when 
he  is  come,  he  findeth  it  empty,  swept,  and  gar- 
nished. Then  goeth  he,  and  taketh  with  himself 
seven  other  spirits  more  wicked  than  himself,  and 
they  enter  in  and  dwell  there ;  and  the  last  state  of 
that  man  is  worse  than  the  first.  Even  so  shall  it 
be  also  unto  this  wicked  generation." — Matt.  xii. 
43-45- 


256  ATONEMENT. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  unclean  spirit  going  out 
is  conversion,  and  its  return  is  apostasy.  In  re- 
ply, we  say  that  there  is  no  Bible  authority  for 
such  an  assumption,  and  that  it  introduces  nu- 
merous contradictions  into  the  passage,  all  out 
of  harmony  with  apostasy.  The  unclean  spirit 
goes  out,  is  not  driven  out:  indicating  that  such 
may  be  at  any  time.  No  doubt  the  spasmodic 
periods  of  reformation  in  a  wicked  man's  life 
may  be  due,  in  some  measure,  to  this;  and  it  is 
clear  that  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  doing  his  work 
in  convincing  of  sin,  this  would  be  true.  That 
it  is  not  conversion,  is  seen  from  the  application 
to  this  "wicked  generation."  The  unclean  spir- 
it's return  would  make  their  last  state  worse  than 
the  first. 

Then  it  is  the  unclean  spirit  who  says,  ( '  I  will 
return;"  this  would  be  to  make  the  apostasy  de- 
pend, not  upon  the  man,  but  the  will  of  the  devil. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  sin  on  the  part  of  the 
man,  but  the  reverse;  for  when  the  unclean  spirit 
returns,  he  finds  the  house  clean  — ' '  swept  and 
garnished."  None  of  the  facts  will  fit  in  with  the 
theory  of  apostasy;  hence  we  must  look  elsewhere 
for  a  solution.  The  key  to  the  subject  is  the 
"empty"  house.  What  if  the  devil  leaves  the 
man  for  a  season  ?  If  the  house  is  left  empty,  the 
devil  will  return.  There  was  no  opening  of  the 
door  and  letting  Christ  in,  for  then  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  have  taken  up  his  abode  in  the  house;  not 
as  a  transient  guest,  but  to  * '  abide  with  you  for- 
ever."— John  xiv.  1 6. 


PERSEVERANCE.  257 

Second.  ' '  But  I  keep  under  my  body,  and  bring 
it  into  subjection;  lest  that  by  any  means,  when  I 
have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a 
castaway." — i  Cor.  ix.  27. 

The  word  translated  * ( castaway ' '  is  dd6xepoc  (ado- 
kimos),  which  means  "unable  to  stand  test,  re- 
jected, refuse,  worthless."  In  the  races,  it  was  a 
word  used  to  designate  one  who  failed  to  win  a 
prise.  In  the  race  of  which  Paul  is  speaking,  he 
was  running  in  order  to  obtain  an  ' '  incorruptible 
crown."  But  what  is  this  incorruptible  crown? 
Is  it  salvation?  Did  Paul  by  this  language  express 
a  fear  that  after  all  he  might  be  lost  ?  Such  an  ex- 
planation would  be  in  conflict  with  his  uniform 
testimony  elsewhere.  What,  then,  was  Paul  fear- 
ful of?  Why,  that  he  might  fail  of  the  "prize," 
the  reward  for  which  he  was  running  that  race. 

In  the  Bible  we  find  four  kinds  of  crowns  given 
to  four  different  classes  as  rewards  for  service.  "A 
crown  of  life"  to  those  who  are  faithful  unto 
death.  Life  is  one  thing,  a  crown  of  life  is  quite 
another.  Life  is  ours  ivhen  we  believe,  and  only 
because  we  believe  :  * '  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everlasting  life."  A  crown  of  life  is  future, 
and  becomes  ours  if  we  are  faithful.  (Rev.  ii.  10.) 

"A  crown  of  glory,"  that  ufadeth  not  away" 
(an  incorruptible  crown),  given  to  the  elders  who 
are  faithful  in  overseeing  the  flock,  (i  Peter  v.  4.) 

A  "crown  of  rejoicing"  given  to  those  who  win 
souls  for  Christ,  (i  Thess.  ii.  19.) 

A  ' '  crown  of  righteousness, ' '  given  to  those  who 
"love  his  appearing."     (i  Tim.  iv.  8.) 
18 


258  ATONEMENT. 

These  crowns  they  wear  in  heaven,  so  that  they 
do  not  represent  heaven;  and  John  pictures  the 
saints  in  glory  as  "casting  their  crowns"  at  the 
Savior's  feet.  It  was  a  "crown"  for  which  Paul 
was  running  the  race — a  reward  or  prize — and  not 
salvation,  which  is  always  a  gift,  and  not  a  reward. 
Very  plainly  the  doctrine  of  rewards  is  taught. 

u  If  any  man's  work  abide  which  he  hath  built 
thereupon  (that  is,  on  the  foundation  Christ),  he 
shall  receive  a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall 
be  burned,  he  shall  suffer  loss;  but  he  himself  shall 
be  saved  ;  yet  so  as  by  fire." — i  Cor.  xiv.  15. 

This  is  easy  to  understand.  If  we  build  upon 
the  foundation  Christ,  good  material,  we  will  re- 
<ceive  a  "  reward."  If,  while  building  upon  Christ, 
-we  use  poor  material,  we  will  "suffer  loss"  (what- 
ever that  may  mean),  but  we  ourselves  will  be 
saved.  Thus  there  are  rewards  to  be  won,  treas- 
ures to  lay  up  in  heaven;  and  as  Christians  we  are 
running  the  race  for  these  prizes;  and  it  was  this 
that  Paul  was  afraid  he  might  lose,  because  its  pos- 
session depended  upon  his  own  faithfulness. 

Third.  u  Therefore  leaving  the  principles  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  let  us  go  on  to  perfection;  not 
laying  again  the  foundation  of  repentance  from 
dead  works,  of  faith  toward  God,  of  the  doctrine 
of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on  of  hands,  and  of  res- 
urrection of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal  judgment. 
And  this  will  we  do  if  God  permit.  For  it  is  im- 
possible for  those  who  were  once  enlightened,  and 
have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made 
partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have  tasted  the 
good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to 


PERSEVERANCE.  259 

come,  if  they  shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again 
unto  repentance;  seeing  they  crucify  to  them- 
selves the  Son  of  God  afresh  and  put  him  to  an 
open  shame." — Heb.  vi.  1-6. 

If  this  is  apostasy,  in  the  Arminian  sense,  then 
there  is  no  recovery,  no  restoration.  There  is  but 
one  new  birth.  But  what  is  the  true  exposition  of 
this  passage  ? 

It  was  written  to  the  Jews,  of  whom  one  writer 
has  said : 

'  They  were  Hebrews  by  birth,  brought  up  in 
the  Jews'  religion,  but  had  embraced  Christianity 
and  come  within  its  privileged  circle;  for  Christian- 
ity does  confer  privileges  on  those  who  stand  with- 
in her  pale,  even  though  the  privileged  persons  may 
ever  remain  strangers  to  salvation  and  eternal  life." 

"  Leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,"  or  more  literally  "leaving  the  word  of  the 
beginning  of  the  Christ"  (dtb  d^svrsc  rov  r^c  u-pfyz 
Torj  XpiffToi)  Xofov).  The  Jews  had,  in  type  and 
shadow,  the  beginning  of  the  word  of  Christ,  and 
to  these  Paul  refers.  In  the  list  enumerated,  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  is  the  Jewish,  not  the  Christian, 
form  of  the  doctrine  that  is  given.  Now,  leaving 
this  word  of  the  beginning  of  Christ,  u  let  us  go 
on  to  perfection."  What  perfection?  Certainly 
not  individual  perfection — perfection  in  self — that 
being  unknown  to  the  Scriptures.  But  the  per- 
fection of  which  he  was  speaking — perfection  in 
Christ. 

The  epistle  has  perfection  for  its  great  theme,  but 
not  man's  perfection.  It  is  the  contrast  between 
law  and  the  gospel  that  the  writer  is  making. 


260  ATONEMENT. 

The  law  made  nothing  perfect,  but  the  bringing 
in  of  a  better  hope  did" 

This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  epistle.  If  we  fol- 
low the  apostle  in  his  argument,  we  find,  after  a 
review  of  the  glories  and  the  perfections  of  Christ, 
that  he  goes  on  to  contrast  the  imperfections  of 
Judaism  with  the  perfection  of  every  thing  in 
Christ. 

Under  the  law  there  was  imperfect  access  to 
God's  presence;  only  the  high-priest  could  enter 
the  Holiest,  and  he  only  once  a  year.  Now,  the 
veil  has  been  rent,  and  all  may  come  at  all  times. 

Under  the  law  there  was  an  imperfect  sacrifice; 
under  the  gospel,  a  perfect  sacrifice. 

Under  the  law,  an  imperfect  priesthood;  under 
the  gospel,  perfection.  Having  presented  all  this 
vividly,  the  epistle  leads  us  in  the  tenth  chapter  to 
the  grand  result  in  the  perfection  of  the  results  of 
this  sacrifice.  Would  that  men  could  see  this,  so 
that,  instead  of  standing  on  Jewish  ground,  and 
degrading  the  blood  of  Jesus  to  the  level  of  that 
of  bulls  and  goats,  they  might  stand  in  the  assur- 
ance of  a  Christian's  standing. 

' '  The  law can  never,  with  those  sacri- 
fices which  they  offered  year  by  year  continually, 
make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect.  For  then  they 
would  have  ceased  to  be  offered  [margin]. 

* '  Because  that  the  worshipers  once  purged  should 
have  had  no  more  conscience  of  sins." — Heb.  x.  i,  2. 

The  repetition  of  sacrifice  was  an  evidence  of 
imperfect  cleansing,  and  the  whole  argument  is 
founded  upon  this.  If  so,  then,  the  ;z<?;z-repetition 


PERSEVERANCE.  261 

of  Christ's  sacrifice  was  proof  that  it  perfectly 
cleansed  from  all  sin.  Every  thing  is  perfect.  It 
was  this  perfection  they  were  to  go  on  to,  as  the 
whole  epistle  shows.  Leaving  the  imperfection  of 
every  thing  under  law,  laying  aside  their  Jewish 
ideas — go  on  to  the  perfection  of  the  gospel. 

' '  For  it  is  impossible. ' '  For  whom  ?  A  regen- 
erated man,  a  believer?  No;  not  one  word  of  this 
in  the  whole  passage.  If  our  readers  will  read  care- 
fully, they  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  here  men- 
tioned but  what  applies  to  a  Jew  who  had  professed 
Christianity.  All  that  is  enumerated  might  be 
true,  and  yet  the  man  be  unsaved.  In  fact,  the 
writer  teaches  this  when  he  says : 

"We  are  persuaded  better  things  of  you,  and 
things  that  accompany  salvation. ' ' 

Showing  that  these  things  did  not. 

"Who  were  once  enlightened."  Thousands 
around  us  are  living  in  the  light  of  Christianity, 
believing  what  the  Bible  teaches,  who  are  not  saved. 

"And  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift."  The  calling 
of  the  Jew  was  earthly^  that  of  this  dispensation  is 
heavenly,  so  that  all  the  privileges  of  Christianity 
are  heavenly,  in  contrast  to  those  of  the  Jews, 
which  were  earthly.  All  living  in  a  Christian  land 
have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift. 

"And  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This 
does  not  mean  that  they  were  sealed,  for  then  they 
would  be  safe;  neither  does  it  mean  that  they  pos- 
sessed the  "earnest,"  for  then  their  right  to  the  in- 
heritance could  never  be  destroyed.  What  then 


262  ATONEMENT. 

does  it  mean  ?  They  lived  in  an  age  when  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  conferred  on  all  professors, 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  by  the  apostles.  All 
having  these  miraculous  powers  were  partakers  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Unregenerate  men  may  thus  be 
partakers,  as  was  Baalam;  for  we  read, 

"Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord, 
have  we  not  prophesied  in  thy  name  ?  and  in  thy 
name  cast  out  devils  ?  and  in  thy  name  done  many 
wonderful  works?" — Matt.  vii.  22. 

To  do  this  they  must  have  been  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  yet  Jesus  says,  "I  never  knew  you." 
Not,  I  do  not  know  you  now,  but,  I  never  knew 
you.  As  he  knows  his  sheep,  they  therefore  never 
were  his  sheep. 

"And  tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the 
powers  of  the  coming  age"  (literally).  We  have  a 
picture  of  this  in  the  stony  ground  hearer.  They 
hear  the  word  and  immediately  with  joy  receive  it, 
but  as  there  is  no  root — not  a  little,  but  none — it 
withers  and  dies. 

So  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  verse  to  point 
out  a  saved  man.  It  was  a  Jewish  professor, 
sharing  some  of  the  privileges  of  Christianity,  but 
needing  to  go  on  to  the  perfection  in  Christ. 

Such  a  one,  having  fallen  away,  and  returning 
to  Judaism,  would  crucify  Christ  afresh,  because  he 
would  have  to  deny  and  pronounce  him  accursed, 
before  he  could  be  restored  to  his  position  as  a  Jew. 
But  let  not  such  a  one  be  deceived.  There  was 
once  the  renewal  of  repentance,  in  the  law;  but 


PERSEVERANCE.  263 

now  that  kind  of  renewal  was  impossible.  No 
doubt  the  returning  Jew  would  again  take  his  sin- 
offering,  and,  laying  on  his  hands,  expect  to  be 
renewed  again,  laying  again  the  same  old  founda- 
tion. Such  renewal  was  impossible. 

The  question  of  apostasy  can  only  be  settled  by 
the  word.  Experience  can  never  be  regarded  as 
proof.  Our  feelings  deceive  us,  the  hearts  of  others 
can  never  be  known,  and  the  only  test  is  that  of 
the  word  of  God. 

The  objection  that  it  leads  to  immorality  we 
have  already  considered  in  our  last  chapter.  The 
gospel  makes  men  new  creatures  in  Christ;  and 
therefore  they  will  never  act  as  this  objection  sug- 
gests. A  sow  may  return  to  its  wallow,  and  a  dog 
to  his  vomit,  because  their  nature  has  remained 
unchanged.  A  sheep  may  fall  into  the  mud,  but  it 
will  not  remain  there;  a  sow  will  wallow  in  it. 
You  may  cover  a  sow  with  a  sheep's  fleece,  but 
that  does  not  make  it  a  sheep;  and  its  wallowing  in 
the  mire  manifests  its  nature,  and  shows  that  it  is 
not  a  sheep,  but  a  sow. 

SECTION  II. — Spirit  baptism  and  perseverance. 

When  we  come  to  examine  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible  as  to  the  security  of  the  believer,  full  and 
strong  are  its  assurances. 

"I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  man  pluck  them  out 
of  my  hand." — John  x.  28. 

"Kept  by  the  power  of  God."— i  Peter  i.  5. 


264  ATONEMENT. 

( '  Being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  which 
hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  "  (or 
finish  it)  "  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ." 

"He  that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life." 

All  these  and  others  are  positive  and  unmis- 
takable. The  ground  of  this  assurance  is  brought 
out  in  the  words, 

u  Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also." 

By  one  Spirit  we  are  joined  to  the  one  body — the 
body  of  Christ.  The  life  of  Christ  is  the  life  of 
the  body.  The  life  of  the  vine  is  that  of  the 
branch.  But  we  are  united  to  Christ,  not  by  his 
incarnation,  but  as  risen,  from  the  dead.  This  life 
never  ends,  never  can  end.  This  life  can  not  sin, 
can  not  fail.  The  life  is  Christ  himself,  for  Christ 
is  "  the  eternal  life."  If  it  was  our  own  life,  then 
it  might  end;  but  being  Christ's,  it  can  never  end; 
it  is  everlasting  life,  and  this  is  ours. 

The  one  Spirit  unites  us  to  Christ,  hence  we 
have  the  Spirit  dwelling  in  us — a  Paraclete  or  Com- 
forter. By  this  Spirit  we  are  linked  to  the  other 
Comforter  or  Paraclete— the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self. 

The  intercession  of  Christ  for  us  and  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  in  us,  is  the  ground  of  the  believer's 
final  salvation  being  made  secure. 

"If  when  we  were  enemies  we  were  reconciled 
to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being 
reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life" — Rom. 
v.  10. 

Not  by  our  faithfulness,  but  "by  his  life."     It  is 


PERSEVERANCE.  265 

not  that  Jesus  pays  ninety  cents  on  the  dollar, 
leaving  us  to  pay  the  rest,  but  that  Jesus  pays  it  all. 

His  intercession,  not  our  faithfulness,  secures  our 
safety. 

* 4  Wherefore  he  is  able  also  to  save  them  to  the 
uttermost  that  come  to  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever 
liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them." — Heb.  vii.  25. 

His  intercession  never  fails;  by  it  our  eternal 
salvation  is  secured,  and  through  him  our  safety  is 
obtained.  So  we  can,  with  Paul,  give  utterance  to 
that  grand  triumphal  challenge, 

u  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's 
elect  ?  It  is  God  that  justifieth. 

' '  Who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that 
died,  yea,  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  interces- 
sion for  us. 

' '  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  ? 
Shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  or 
famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword  ? 

u  As  it  is  written,  For  thy  sake  we  are  killed  all 
the  day  long;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep  for  the 
slaughter. 

u  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  con- 
querors through  him  that  loved  us. 

u  For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither  death,  nor 
life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor 
things  present,  nor  things  to  come, 

"Nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature, 
shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God, 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord." — Rom.  viii. 
33-39- 


PART   IV. 


REVIEW  OF  BURNEY  ON  SOTERIOLOGY, 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

BURNEY    ON    LAW. 

Dr.  Burney's  book  on  Soteriology  sets  forth  what 
we  have  called  the  Supernatural  Moral  Influence 
Theory.  It  is  by  far  the  ablest  presentation  of  the 
arguments  against  substitution  we  have  met,  and  as 
against  Calvinism  simply  unanswerable.  In  his  re- 
coil from  Calvinism,  he  has  done  what  hundreds 
have  before — gone  to  the  other  extreme,  and  thrown 
a  vicarious  atonement  overboard. 

Logically  strong,  his  book  is  yet  exegetically 
weak. 

We  have  tried  to  analyze  his  theory  so  as  to  deal 
with  each  factor  separately. 

The  foundation  of  his  argument  is  to  be  found  in 
what  he  says  about  law  and  penalty.  If  he  is  right 
in  this,  we  concede  that  salvation  by  substitution  is 
impossible;  and  while  we  would  still  object  to  his 
theory,  we  should  agree  that  moral  means  alone  are 
needed  for  man's  redemption. 


LAW.  267 

In  Part  I.  of  this  book  we  have  shown  at  some 
length  the  distinction  between  a  penalty  and  a  con- 
sequence, and  failure  to  do  this  is  the  fatal  flaw  in 
both  the  Calvinistic  and  Burney  theories.  Calvin- 
ism, with  its  double  imputation,  practically  sets 
aside  redemption  by  power;  Burney  overlooks  re- 
demption by  purchase. 

The  first  part  of  Dr.  Burney 's  book  is  occupied 
with  an  historical  review  of  Christian  Soteriology. 
His  interpretations  of  the  Fathers  are  strained,  un- 
natural, and  imperfect.  Only  one  point  will  be 
considered  here.  In  our  introduction  we  give  a 
quotation  from  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus.  Burney 
quotes  this  as  from  Irenaeus,  adding  the  following 
comment : 

Burney. — "  i.  That  it  of  itself  teaches  nothing 
distinctively  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
whether  they  satisfied  the  claims  of  God  or  Satan. 
If  Irenaeus  was  consistent  with  himself  he  meant 
the  latter. 

u  2.  What  it  does  teach  is  that  men  are  saved  by 
Christ's  righteousness,  acquired  by  satisfying  the 
claims  of  Satan  to  whom  he  believed  men  owed 
some  sort  of  allegiance. " — Page  29. 

He  then  quotes  from  Irenaeus  as  proof  that  he 
held  the  doctrine  that  Christ's  death  was  a  ransom 
to  Satan : 

"The  word  of  God  [the  Logos]  omnipotent  and 
not  wanting  in  justice  even  against  the  apostasy  or 
kingdom  of  evil  itself  [apostasian],  redeeming  from 
it  \ab  ed\  that  which  was  his  own  originally,  not  by 
using  violence,  as  did  the  devil  in  the  beginning; 


268  ATONEMENT. 

but  by  persuasion  [secundum  sandelum],  as  it  be- 
came God,  so  that  neither  justice  should  be  in- 
fringed upon,  nor  the  original  creation  of  God 
perish." 

Dr.  Burney,  commenting  on  this,  says  : 

"  Here  we  have  a  distinct  recognition  of  the 
rights  of  Satan." — Page  28. 

Comment. — i.  Numerous  extracts  can  be  given  from 
Irenaeus  to  show  that  he  repudiated  the  claims  of 
Satan,  holding  redemption  by  power,  saying,  "when 
Satan  is  bound,  man  is  set  free."  The  extract 
given  by  Burney  is  the  only  ground  for  his  asser- 
tion, aiid  that  it  may  be  rightly  understood  we  give 
the  quotation  more  at  length  (we  quote  from  the 
Anti-Nicene  library,  published  in  Edinburgh) : 

u  The  mighty  Word,  and  very  man,  who,  redeem- 
ing us  by  his  own  blood  in  a  manner  consonant  to 
reason,  gave  himself  as  a  redemption  for  those  who 
had  been  led  into  captivity.  And  since  the  apos- 
tasy tyrannized  over  ^^s  unjustly,  and,  though  we 
were  by  nature  the  property  of  the  omnipotent 
God,  alienated  us  contrary  to  nature,  rendering  us 
its  own  disciples,  the  Word  of  God,  powerful  in  all 
things,  and  not  defective  with  regard  to  his  own 
justice,  did  righteously  turn  against  that  apostasy, 
and  redeem  from  it  his  own  property,  not  by  violent 
means,  as  the  (apostasy)  had  obtained  dominion 
over  us  at  the  beginning,  when  it  insatiably  snatched 
away  what  was  not  its  own,  but  by  persuasion,  as 
became  a  God  of  counsel,  who  does  not  use  violent 
means  to  obtain  what  he  desires;  so  that  neither 
should  justice  be  infringed  upon,  nor  the  ancient 
handiwork  of  God  go  to  destruction.  Since  the 
.Lord  thus  has  redeemed  us  through  his  own  blood, 


LAW.  269 

giving  his  soul  for  our  souls,  and  his  flesh  for  our 
flesh,  and  has  also  poured  out  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father  for  the  union  and  communion  of  God  and 
man,  imparting  indeed  God  to  men  by  means  of 
the  Spirit."  (Against  Heresies,  Book  V.,  Chapter 
I.,  Section  I.) 

Our  readers  can  judge  if  this  affords  sufficient 
ground  for  the  statement  as  to  his  belief.  Is  not 
Burney  mistaken  ? 

2.  The  Epistle  to  Diognetus  has  never  been  at- 
tributed to  Irenaeus,  so  that  at  any  rate  Burney 's 
criticism  has  110  force.  When  first  published, 
Justin  Martyr's  name  was  attached  to  it.  Since 
then,  it  has  been  placed  among  the  writings  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers,  some  attributing  it  to  Clement, 
others  to  Apollos.  It  is  now  generally  conceded 
that  the  author  is  unknown.  He  speaks  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christ  as  u  new"  and  says  of  himself, 
"but  having  been  a  disciple  of  the  apostles,  I  am 
become  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles." 

In  Chapter  V.,  Dr.  Burney  contrasts  the  Anselmic 
and  the  Grotian  Soteriology,  and  as  we  have  his 
views  on  law  partly  brought  out,  we  will  here  re- 
view him  on  law. 

Burney. — "  i.  Anselm  posits  the  law  in  the  di- 
vine nature  so  that  God  being  what  he  is  the  law 
necessarily  is  as  it  is.  Grotius  makes  the  law  the 
product  of  the  divine  will.  In  this  Grotius  is  right 
and  Anselm  wrong." — Page  47. 

Comment. — Is  God  influenced  by  motives  when 
he  wills  ?  If  not,  as  an  act  of  will  without  motive 
is  inconceivable,  being  simply  the  action  of  blind 


270  ATONEMENT. 

force,  God  and  fate  would  be  synonymous.  If  God 
is  influenced  by  motives,  do  they  arise  from  that 
which  is  within  or  from  without  himself?  Surely 
if  he  is  the  absolute  Creator  of  all  things,  his  ulti- 
mate motive  must  be  within  himself,  and  must 
have  been  ' '  the  exercise  of  his  attributes,  and  in 
their  exercise  the  manifestation  of  their  excel- 
lence." God  wills  nothing  in  conflict  with  his  own 
attributes.  God  is  holy,  he  could  not  will  to  be 
unholy.  God  is  love,  he  can  not  be  conceived  of 
is  choosing  to  be  vindictive,  and  retaining  this 
character  of  love.  But  love  is  essential  to  a  perfect 
being,  and  perfection  is  necessitated  in  the  idea  of 
God.  Hence,  we  may  say,  God  can  not  will  that 
which  is  vindictive.  We  do  not  mean  that  the  acts 
of  God's  will  are  necessitated  by  his  nature — that 
would  deprive  God's  will  of  freedom.  But  we  mean 
that  the  acts  of  his  will  are  always  in  harmony 
with  his  nature.  They  are  never  in  conflict  with  it. 

God's  existence  can  not  be  conceived  of,  apart 
from  the  divine  attributes.  These  form  the  glory 
and  perfection  of  God.  They  are  made  manifest  to 
us  partly  through  his  works,  fully  by  revelation. 
We  know  the  nature  of  God  by  what  he  has 
taught  us. 

The  divine  intelligence,  not  the  divine  will,  is 
the  judge  of  right;  hence,  the  will  is  guided  in  its 
volitions  by  intelligence.  The  divine  intelligence  is 
influenced  in  its  judgments  by  the  divine  character, 
so  that  without  any  fatalistic  theory,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  evident  that  God  will  not  (not  can  not) 
will,  only  in  harmony  with  his  nature. 


LAW.  271 

To  refer  every  thing  to  the  will  of  God  without 
reference  to  his  nature  would  be  to  make  God's 
holiness,  benevolence,  truth,  and  justice,  either  the 
products  of  his  will,  or  to  exist  as  attributes,  but 
without  any  channel  for  their  exercise  and  mani- 
festation. If  the  will  is  the  ultimate  and  final 
standard,  and  the  acts  of  his  will  are  not  the  mani- 
festation of  his  nature,  a  change  of  will  would,  in 
a  moment,  blot  out  all  sin  and  transform  virtue  into 
vice. 

Burney. — "2.  Anselm  makes  the  law  unabrogable, 
and  even  unrelaxable.  Grotius  makes  it  relaxable, 
and  even  abrogable,  if  God  should  will  either.  In 
this  Anselm  is  right,  and  Grotius  is  wrong,  as  we 
may  see. 

"3.  According  to  Anselm's  notion  of  law,  its 
abrogation  would  be  the  destruction  of  the 
Deity,  and  its  relaxation  a  modification  of  his  nat- 
ure, just  as  the  destruction  of  any  of  the  primary 
properties  of  matter  would  be  the  destruction  of 
matter  itself,  as  a  change  of  the  properties  of  matter 
would  be  a  modification  of  matter  itself. 

"  But  according  to  Grotius'  idea  of  the  law,  its 
abrogation  would  be  an  exemption  of  all  obliga- 
tion, and  its  relaxation  a  partial  exemption." — 
Page  48. 

Comment. — i.  If  the  divine  will  alone,  apart 
from  the  divine  nature,  is  the  source  of  law,  then 
the  position  of  Grotius  is  true.  If  God's  will  alone 
makes  it  right,  all  obligation  arises  from  the  fact 
that  God  wills  it;  if  God  changes  his  will,  then 
obligation  certainly  ceases  also.  This  is  self-evi- 
dent. How  Burney  can  consistently  deny  that  law 


272  ATONEMENT. 

is  relaxable  and  posit  it  in  the  divine  will  we  can 
not  see.  His  reason,  as  given  in  our  next  quotation, 
is  insufficient;  for  if  the  abrogation  did  involve  the 
destruction  of  the  created  mind,  God  could  so  will. 
Law  being  posited  in  the  divine  will,  Burney  can 
not  fall  back  upon  the  divine  nature  for  proof  of  its 
immutability.  Hence,  if  the  law  is  not  abrogable, 
on  his  theory  it  is  made  so  by  a  creature  existence. 
God  is,  then,  controlled  from  without,  and  not  from 
within,  and  a  creature  existence  destroys  the  free- 
dom of  the  divine  will.  This  is  a  far  more  objec- 
tionable scheme  of  fatality  than  that  which  he  as- 
sails. 

2.  Burney' s  statement  as  to  Anselm's  position 
and  the  illustration  given  is  not  satisfactory.  A 
change  in  the  divine  character  does  not  necessitate 
the  destruction  of  the  Divine  Essence,  any  more 
than  a  good  man's  becoming  a  bad  one  would  in- 
volve his  destruction.  Adam's  sin  did  not  destroy 
him,  but  it  did  destroy  his  innocence.  To  abrogate 
the  law,  according  to  Anselm,  would  destroy  the 
divine  perfection,  not  the  divine  essence.  Both  re- 
laxation and  abrogation  would  necessitate  a  change 
in  the  Deity. 

Burney. — u  But  according  to  the  true  conception 
of  the  law,  its  abrogation  would  be  the  destruction 
of  the  created  mind  itself,  and  its  relaxation  a  modi- 
fication of  the  nature  of  the  mind.  For  the  law  is  a 
concreation  of  the  mind — is  written  upon  the  heart 
— and  as  such  is  as  truly  a  product  of  the  divine 
will  as  is  the  mind  itself.  Hence,  an  abrogation  of 
the  law  would  involve  the  destruction  of  the  mind 
and  its  relaxation  an  essential  change  of  the  mind, 


LAW.  273 

just  as  the  abrogation  or  modification  of  the  essen- 
tial properties  of  matter  would  involve  its  destruc- 
tion or  modification.  Hence,  while  divine  ordi- 
nances or  laws  of  expediency,  which  are  only  ob- 
jective and  are  only  servitors  of  the  great  moral 
law,  may  be  abrogated  or  relaxed,  no  concreated 
and  subjective  law  can  be  so  dealt  with  without 
disastrous  consequences. 

Anselm  is  fatally  at  fault  when  he  makes 
the  law  indigenous  to  the  divine  nature  and  inde- 
pendent of  the  divine  will.  Grotius  is  equally  at 
fault  when  he  fails  to  make  the  law  indigenous  to 
the  human  mind,  or  subjective  as  well  as  objective, 
and  asserts  it  to  be  abrogable  and  relaxable."  — 
Page  48. 

Comment. — i.  Underlying  this  is  the  material- 
istic conception  that  there  is  an  analogy  be- 
tween mind  and  matter  as  to  the  nature  of  their 
properties  and  their  relation  to  the  substances  in 
which  they  inhere.  This  is  purely  an  assumption. 
To  know,  feel,  and  will,  are  the  attributes  of  spirit. 
But  as  all  experience  shows,  they  differ  essentially, 
both  in  nature  and  relation,  from  the  properties  of 
matter. 

2.  Burney  misinterprets  Anselm.  He  gives  to 
Anselm' s  statements  the  meaning  they  would  have  if 
Burney 's  definition  of  law  had  been  held  by  Anselm. 
This  is  a  grave  fault  all  through  Dr.  Burney 's  book. 
He  gives  his  own  meaning  or  definitions  to  the 
words  of  others,  and  then  interprets  them  from  this 
stand-point.  By  ' ( the  law  indigenous  to  the  human 
mind,"  Burney  means  what  he  calls  "subjective 
law."  When  he  says  Anselm  is  at  fault  in  making 
it  ' '  indigenous  to  the  divine  nature, ' '  we  can  only 


274  ATONEMENT. 

suppose  that  he  means  that  Anselm  taught  "sub- 
jective law"  in  the  Deity. 

Anselm  was  the  first  to  present  the  ontological 
argument  for  the  existence  of  God,  and  whatever 
our  estimate  of  its  value,  none  have  given  it  with 
more  force.  In  the  unfolding  of  this  argument, 
he  says  that  things — 

"Are  called  good  in  a  variety  of  ways  and  de- 
grees. This  would  be  impossible  if  there  were  not 
some  absolute  standard,  some  good  in  itself,  in 
which  all  relative  goods  participate.  Similarly 
with  such  predicates  as  great,  just,  they  involve  a 
certain  greatness  and  justice.  The  very  existence 
of  things  is  impossible  without  some  Being,  by 
whom  they  are.  This  absolute  Being,  this  good- 
ness, justice,  greatness,  is  God." 

If  this  is  read  in  the  light  of  the  ontological 
method  of  reasoning  it  is  plain.  But  it  is  totally 
different  from  Burney's  idea  of  subjective  law,  or 
law  indigenous  to  the  divine  nature. 

3.  No  analysis  of  mind  will  give  us  such  a  con- 
ception of  law  as  that  which  Burney  advocates.     If 
.his  theory  is  correct,  we  must  divide  the  mind  into 
intellect,   sensibility,  will,   and   "subjective  law." 
But  in  that  case  it  would   be   a   contradiction    to 
speak  of  it  as  law.     The  properties  of  matter  are 
not  laws,   but  the  combined  properties  constitute, 
or  manifest,  the  nature  of  the  substance  we   call 
matter.     If  this  is  the  relation  of  "subjective  law " 
to  mind,  then  all  obedience  is  necessitated. 

4.  But  in  the  above  extract,  while  making  this 
"subjective  law"  to  inhere  in  the  mind  so  that  its 


LAW.  275 

abrogation  is  the  destruction  of  mind,  he  at  the 
same  time  makes  it  distinct;  this  subjective  law  u  is 
as  truly  a  product  of  the  divine  will  as  is  the  mind 
itself"  If  it  is  separate,  its  abrogation  would  be 
but  the  destruction  of  itself. 

To  bring  out  fully  Dr.  Burney's  theory  as  to  law, 
we  give  one  more  quotation,  this  time  from  "Atone- 
ment and  Law  Reviewed,"  page  63: 

Burney. — u  Science  and  the  Bible  are  in  full  ac- 
cord in  affirming  the  existence  of  subjective  moral 
law  as  an  essential  characteristic  of  human  nature. 
Paul  is  the  metaphysician  of  the  New  Testament. 
He  says  (Rom.  ii.  12-15):  '  ....  in  that  they 
shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, 
their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith,  and 
thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing 
them.'  This  is  so  plain  that  comment  can  scarcely 
make  it  plainer. 

u(i)  Paul  here  affirms  the  existence  of  the  re- 
vealed or  written  law,  or  law  in  commandment;  and 
also  a  law  written  in  the  hearts  of  the  Gentiles.  .  . 
.  .  In  this  verse  (12)  we  are  plainly  taught  that 
those  that  have  not  objective  law  in  commandment 
may  sin;  sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law;  what 
law  do  they  transgress  ?  Not  the  law  in  command- 
ment, for  they  have  no  such  law.  Then  it  is,  of 
necessity,  this  subjective  law  written  in  the  heart. 

u  (3)  That  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no 
written  law.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  word  im- 
pute in  this  text  is  of  importance.  The  verb 
allogeo  is  not  the  verb  generally  translated  impute. 
It  is  used  but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  here 
and  in  Philemon  xviii.  5.  It  can  not  mean  (in 
this  place)  that  sin  did  not  actually  exist  as  sin. 
....  It  must  mean,  then,  -that  sin  is  not  known, 


276  ATONEMENT. 

or  recognized,  or  apprehended  as  sin ;  or  in  its  true 
character  when  there  is  no  law  in  commandment  to 
define  or  characterize  it.  The  sinner  is,  of  course, 
conscious  of  his  mental  state,  of  his  unrest,  and  of 
fearful  apprehensions  of  evil;  but  is  unable  to  un- 
derstand the  reason  of  all  this  abnormal ty  in  his 
mental  state. ' ' 

Comment. — i.  Dr.  Burney  misinterprets  both 
science  and  the  Bible.  "  Paul  here  affirms  ....  a 
law  written  in  the  hearts  of  the  Gentiles/'  But 
with  all  respect  to  Dr.  Burney,  this  is  just  what 
Paul  does  not  do.  It  is  the  work  of  the  law  that  is 
written,  and  not  the  law.  (TO  Zpfov  TOL>  vo^ou 
Ypanrov — to  ergon  tou  nomou  grapton.)  Paul  was 
too  good  a  metaphysician  to  make  such  a  statement 
as  Burney  attributes  to  him. 

2.  "Sin  is  the  transgression  of  law;  what  law  do 
they  transgress  ?  ....   it  is  of  necessity  the  sub- 
jective law."     This  definition  of  sin  will  not  stand. 
"The  transgression  of  the  law,"   is  a  translation 
(or  rather  an  interpretation},  of  the  Greek  word  for 
law  with  the  particle  of  privation  prefixed.    *AvofjLO$ 
(anomos\  is  literally  law-less.     Sin  is  lawlessness. 

3.  Burney    assumes     that    because    they   were 
without  law  they  had  no  knowledge  of  right,  and 
no  rule  of  action,    unless  it  came  from  "subject- 
ive law."     In  this  he  forgets  the  reason  why  the 
law  was  given,  and  the  special  character  of  the  dis- 
pensation from  Adam  to  Moses.     God  revealed  his 
will,  gave  commandments,  and  was  in  direct  com- 
munication with  men.     The  command  not  to  kill, 
being  an  example.     Six  lives  linked  Moses  and  the 


LAW.  277 

garden  of  Eden  together.  In  that  age  truth  was 
communicated  directly  to  men,  and  by  oral  tradi- 
tion from  them  to  all  nations,  so  that  in  some  meas- 
ure the  intellect  was  instructed  and  the  conscience 
could  act.  The  theory  of  oral  tradition  is  a  better 
explanation  than  "subjective"  law,  because,  while 
it  accounts  for  those  beliefs  that  are  universal — 
common  to  all  religions — it  better  accounts  for  their 
manifold  perversion. 

4.  The  theory  of  "subjective  law"  is  in  direct 
conflict  with  Paul,  who  distinctly  states  that  when 
those   nations    "which   have  no   law,   practice   by 
nature  the  things  of  the  law,  these,  having  no  law 
(o'jTot  vonov  jj-'fj  ££ovr£c)  are  a  law  to  themselves." 
No  law  excludes  every  law,  either  objective  or  sub- 
jective.    Burney  has  to  insert,  no  "written"  law. 

5.  The  great  mistake  of  Dr.  Burney  is  that  he 
confounds  the   "moral  sense"   in  man  with  law. 
Having  dragged  in  the  word  law,  he  then  makes  the 
law  "objective  law,"  thus  linking  them  together  in 
the  minds  of  his  readers.     He  then  boldly  proclaims 
their  identity  as  "one  law"     Of  course,  if  this  be 
true,  it  is  only  a  step  to  the  identification  of  penalty 
with  "subjective  law,"  and  in  this  way  he  lays  the 
foundation  for  his  non-penal  theory. 

The  moral  sense  every  man  has;  and  without 
this  moral  sense  or  faculty,  which  includes  con- 
science and  those  primary  intuitions  that  are  com- 
mon to  the  race  (such  as  the  idea  of  God,  immor- 
tality, etc.),  law  would  have  no  force,  whether  it  be 
subjective  or  objective.  It  is  the  possession  of  this 
moral  sense  that  makes  us  moral  agents,  and  lays 


278  ATONEMENT. 

the  foundation  for  all  moral  government.  It  is  this 
that  Burney  seems  to  mean  when  he  speaks  of  sub- 
jective law;  for  he  says  that  usin  is  not  known 
....  when  there  is  no  law  in  commandment." 
His  error  is  in  calling  it  subjective  law,  and  then 
making  it  one  law  with  that  in  commandment,  and 
then  setting  aside  entirely  all  objective  law,  and 
reasoning  from  the  u subjective"  alone. 

Burney's  theory  requires  no  law  in  commandment, 
and  in  admitting  the  insufficiency  of  subjective  law, 
he  commits  logical  suicide. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

BURNEY    ON    PENALTY. 

In  commenting  upon  the  distinction  made  by  Dr. 

Hodge  as  to  Reatus  culpcz  and  reatus  poence,  Bur- 
ney  says  : 

Burney. — u  Certainly  there  is  an  appreciable  dis- 
tinction between  criminality  and  penalty,  between 
moral  corruption  and  punishment,  and  we  may  in- 
dicate this  difference  by  the  technical  forms,  reatus 
culpcz  and  reatu s  poence,  if  we  choose.  But  it  must 
be  remembered  that,  though  they  are  logically  dis- 
tinct, they  are  both  logically  and  chronally  insepa- 
rable. Criminality  involves  liability  to  punish- 
ment, and  punishment  presupposes  criminality." — 
Page  112. 

Comment. — Burney  here,  as  elsewhere,  deals  un- 
fairly with  the  positions  of  substitutionists.  It 
seems  to  be  done  unconsciously,  because  his  own 
definitions  are  vividly  before  his  mind,  and  thus 
used  to  define  the  meaning  of  substitutionists. 
What  is  the  distinction  made  by  Burney  in  the 
above  extract?  Simply  between  criminality  and 
penalty.  We  place  Hodge's  distinction  over  against 
Burney 's  rendering  of  it.  He  says  : 

u  The  word  guilt expresses  the  relation 

which  sin  bears  to  justice,  or,  as  the  older  theo- 
logians said,  to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  rela- 
tion, however,  is  twofold. 


280  ATONEMENT. 

"First,  that  which  is  expressed  by  criminality 
and  ill-desert,  or  demerit.  This  is  inseparable  from 
sin.  It  can  belong  to  no  one  who  is  not  personally 
a  sinner,  and  it  permanently  attaches  to  all  who 
have  sinned.  It  is  not  removed  by  justification, 
much  less  by  pardon.  It  can  not  be  transferred  from 
one  person  to  another. 

( '  But,  secondly,  guilt  means  the  obligation  to 
satisfy  justice.  This  may  be  removed  by  the  satis- 
faction of  justice  personally  or  vicariously." 

This  is  insisted  on  by  all  substitutionists.  Not 
a  distinction  between  criminality  and  penalty,  but 
between  criminality,  or  demerit,  and  the  liability  to 
a  penalty;  or,  as  Hodge  expresses  it,  "the  obligation 
to  satisfy  justice."  The  word  guilt  is  used  in  both 
senses,  but  never  as  synonymous  with  penalty. 

Burney  distorts  Hodge  in  another  way  :  "  There 
is  an  appreciable  distinction  between  criminality 
and  penalty,  between  moral  corruption  and  punish- 
ment. ' '  We  doubt  if  Hodge  would  have  accepted 
this  identification  of  criminality  and  depravity. 
We  reject  it  in  toto.  But  this  seems  to  be  Burney 's 
logical  method.  He  gives  his  own  definitions  to 
his  adversaries'  statements,  and  then  proceeds  to 
annihilate  them  at  will.  By  this  logical  juggling 
it  is  easy  to  avoid  the  necessity  for  proof.  By 
making  criminality  to  be  corruption,  liability  to 
a  penalty  to  be  the  same  as  penalty,  and  then  by 
making  this  penalty  a  consequence,  he  can  assume 
as  self-evident  and  not  needing  proof,  that  de- 
pravity and  its  consequences  are  "logically  and 
chronally  inseparable. "  If  Dr.  Burney  is  satisfied 
with  this,_  substitutionists  can  afford  to  be. 


PENALTY.  281 

Burney. — uAs  to  the  order  of  relation  between 
crime  and  penalty,  it  seerns  superfluous  to  say 
that  they  are  related  as  cause  and  effect,  or  as 
antecedent  and  consequent,  and  that  crime  is  the 
antecedent,  and  punishment  the  consequence." — 
Page  113. 

"The  penalties  of  human  law  are  purely  arbi- 
trary— are  fixed  by  judicial  authority,  and  have  no 
necessary  connection  with  the  crime.  The  punish- 
ment, if  it  conies  at  all,  conies  from  without,  and 
through  the  agency  of  other  minds.  Hence,  the 
penalty  for  the  same  offense  is  now  this,  and  now 
that — in  one  State  one  thing,  and  in  another  some- 
thing different,  according  to  the  judgments  or 
whims  of  the  lawgivers. 

"But  it  is  not  so  in  divine  law.  Criminality 
and  penalty,  as  I  have  often  said,  are  causally  con- 
nected, the  latter  growing  naturally  out  of  the 
former,  and  is  determined  by  it  as  the  stream  comes 
from  the  fountain,  by  which  its  character  is  deter- 
mined. God  has  immutably  fixed  this  relation  be- 
tween criminality  and  penalty,  and  no  power  short 
of  omnipotence  can  separate  them.  But  God  does 
not  ordain  laws  in  the  realms  of  matter  or  mind  to 
revoke  or  modify  them  on  occasion.  Hence,  the 
only  possible  method  of  escape  from  penalty  is  to 
get  rid  of  the  criminality  that  produces  it." — 
Page  115. 

Comment. — i.  The  distinction  between  human 
and  divine  law  is  only  partially  true,  as  we  have 
shown  in  these  pages.  God's  moral  government  is 
exercised  upon  the  earth;  it  regulates  the  conduct 
of  man  to  man.  Human  laws  are  founded  upon 
the  divine;  and  if  Burney's  exposition  of  penalty  is 
true,  all  punishment  by  law  would  be  unjust. 


282  ATONEMENT. 

2.  Depravity  and  its  consequences,  as  we  have 
shown,  have  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect.     Sin, 
as  transgression,  and  penalty  have  not.     Penalties 
are  not  consequences,  having,  as  Burney  admits  of 
those  connected  with  human  laws,   "no  necessary 
connection  with  the  crime." 

3.  As  we  are  u  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath," 
if  consequence  and  penalty  are  the  same,  we  are 
madeyb  suffer  the  penalty  of  another's  sin  before 
actual  sin  has  been  committed.     Depravity  and  its 
consequences  may  be  propagated,  but  law  and  its 
penalties  never. 

4.  If  the  theory  be  true,  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  the  "long-suffering"   of   God.      The  penalties 
being  always  executed,  he  does  not  bear  with  the 
sinner  at  all. 

5.  There  can  be  no  remission.     The  theory  is 
that  we  are  saved  from  the  penalty  by  being  deliv- 
ered from  the  sin.     When  sin — the  cause — ceases, 
penalty — the  effect — ceases  also.     Then  there  is  no 
remission,  simply  deliverance  from  sin.     Past  sins 
have  been  punished;  and,  as  punishment  is  neither 
remission    nor   pardon,    there   is   no   remission    of 
these;    and  the  words   "for   the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past"  are  unmeaning. 

6.  It  logically  leads  to  the  doctrine  of  progress- 
ive regeneration. 

7.  It  necessitates  the  idea   of  punishment  after 
pardon,  or  else  that  pardon  is  unattainable  in  this 
life. 

8.  In  the  whole  range  of  human  experience  there 
is  no  example  of  a  legal  command  with  a  self-in- 


PENALTY.  283 

flicting  penalty.  It  is  an  impossibility.  Therefore 
the  theory  must  deny  all  legal  relations  to  the  law 
of  God. 

9.  There  is   no   place   for  a  judgment.     If  sin 
merits  punishment,  and  that  punishment  is  future, 
the  reason  for  a  judgment  is  readily  apprehended. 
God   must  retider  to  every  man    according  to  his 
deeds.      But  if  sin  is  always  followed  by  its  pen- 
alty, as  effect  follows  cause,  what  need  is  there  for 
a  judgment? 

10.  If  Burney  is  right,  we  should  find  no  such 
inequality  in   the   lives    of    wicked  men    as  now. 
As  cause  and   effect   are   always    the    same,   there 
would  be  uniformity  in  the  way  penalty  followed 
sin.     But  it  is  the  most  certain  of  truths  that  no 
such  uniformity  exists  in  this  life.     The  theory  is 
out  of  harmony  with  the  facts. 

11.  If  the  theory  is  true,  hell  is  not  a  place,  but 
a  "mental  state;"  and  to  be  cast  into  hell  is  synon- 
ymous with  being  turned  into  one's  self.    If  there  is 
a  hell,  a  place  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels, 
if  the  sinner  is  to  hear  the  fearful  word  u  depart," 
then  there  is  in  the  future  a  governmental  award, 
and    that   distinct   from    the   consequences   of   de- 
pravity. 

12.  It  necessitates  eternal  sin  as  the  ground  of 
eternal  punishment.     To  argue  that  the  sin  might 
cease  and  the  penalty  go  on  would  be  fatal  to  the 
theory  from  every  stand-point. 

If  the  penalty  does  not  cease  with  the  sin,  the  in- 
tervention of  divine  power  is  necessary  to  save 
when  we  believe.  If  this  future  punishment  would 


284  ATONEMENT. 

be  justly  inflicted,  the  question  would  come,  can 
God  justly  withhold  it,  and,  if  so,  on  what  grounds  ? 
Then  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  against  sub- 
stitution would  be  gone.  More,  if  almighty  power 
steps  in  and  saves  from  future  suffering  when  sin 
ceases  in  the  believer,  why  not  in  the  unbeliever  ? 
The  distinction  we  have  made  between  depravity 
and  its  consequences  and  transgression  and  penalty 
gives  an  answer  from  our  stand-point,  but  not  from 
Burney's.  Eternal  transgression  we  believe  to  be 
out  of  harmony  with  the  final  triumph  of  right, 
and  to  have  no  countenance  in  the  word  of  God. 

13.  The  theory  is  in  conflict  with  the  Scriptures. 
This  has  been  shown  in  the  chapter  on  "  Restitution 
or  Retribution;"  and  here  once  again  we  may  say 
that  the  demand  for  restitution  has  no  place,  if 
retribution  has  already  been  inflicted. 

In  Part  II.,  in  his  preliminary  statements,  he 
lays  down  the  following  as  true  : 

Burney. — "The  invariable  characteristics  of  the 
divine  law  are  : 

u  i.  It  requires  personal  obedience.  '  Thou  shall 
love,'  etc." — Page  136. 

Commenl. — We  believe  this  is  true,  and  that  no 
one  will  dispute  it. 

Burney.  —  "2.  Its  penalties  are  coincident  with 
its  transgressions  :  '  In  Ihe  day  thou  eatest  thereof, 
thou  shalt  surely  die.'  " — Page  136. 

Commenl. — i.  This  identifies  the  divine  law  and 
the  command  given  to  Adam,  which  must  be 
proved. 


PENALTY.  285 

2.  It  is  a  begging  of  the  question,  assuming  as 
true  the  very  thing  that  is  in  dispute. 

3.  We  have  already  considered  this  penalty  in 
discussing  the  subject  of  death.     If  what  Burney 
here  says  means  any  thing,  it  is  a  denial  of  future 
punishment. 

Burney. — u  3.  It  excludes  the  possibility  of  sub- 
titutionary  obedience.  *  The  soul  that  sinneth  it 
shall  die.'''— Page  136. 

Comment. — i.  This  text  has  reference  to  physical 
death  as  the  penalty  of  the  law,  "soul"  here 
meaning  person. 

"  If  the  wicked  will  turn  from  all  his  sins  which 
he  hath  committed,  and  keep  all  my  statutes,  and 
do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  surely 
live,  he  shall  not  die.  All  his  transgression  that 
he  hath  committed,  they  shall  not  be  mentioned 
unto  him 

"  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  away  from  his 

righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity, 

all  his  righteousness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not 
be  mentioned;  in  his  trespass  that  he  hath  tres- 
passed, and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them 
shall  he  die." — Ezek.  xviii.  21-24. 

A  careful  comparison  of  the  chapter  will  show 
that  the  entire  argument  is  as  to  the  penalty  of  law 
under  Judaism.  If  we  make  it  apply  to  the  eternal 
issues,  it  teaches  salvation  by  works  and  the  possi- 
bility of  apostasy,  things  that  are  unknown  to  the 
Bible. 

2.  No  one,  not  even  a  substitutionist,  affirms 
that  penalty  is  threatened  against  any  one  but  the 


286  ATONEMENT. 

evil  doer.  If  this  were  not  true,  substitution  would 
be  forever  impossible.  Proof  that  the  penalty  is 
threatened  against  the  offender  is  not  proof  that 
substitution  is  impossible.  "The  man  that  gets 
drunk  shall  pay  a  fine  of  five  dollars,"  does  not  ex- 
clude the  vicarious  payment  of  the  fine. 

Burney. — "4.  It  excludes  the  commutation  of 
one  penalty  for  another.  *  Whatsoever  a  man  sow- 
eth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.'  " — Page  136. 

Comment. — In  dealing  with  the  New  Birth  we 
have  shown  that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  be- 
liever. Paul,  in  Galatians,  is  writing  to  Christians 
of  the  conflict  between  them — "the  flesh  lusteth 
against  the  Spirit."  In  the  sixth  chapter  he  is 
still  following  out  this  thought  of  the  two  natures 
— the  flesh  and  the  Spirit — and  this  is  the  true 
meaning  and  application  of  the  words  that  Burney 
quotes,  as  the  next  verse  shows. 

While  salvation  is  of  grace  alone,  it  is  not  a 
matter  of  indifference  how  we  walk.  If  we  are 
"carnal" — fleshly — even  babes  in  Christ  (i  Cor. 
iii.  i),  "walking  as  men,"  we  will  experience  that 
"from"  (Ix)  the  flesh  there  comes  nothing  but  cor- 
ruption. No  life,  no  vitality,  no  power  to  over- 
come when  we  are  tempted.  But  if  we  "  walk  in 
the  Spirit "  we  shall  not  fulfill  the  lust  of  the  flesh. 
'  *  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life ' '  gives  power,  and 
from  (Ix)  the  Spirit  we  reap  everlasting  life. 

This  is  a  different  thing  from  the  governmental 
awards  for  the  transgression  of  the  sinner. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

RURNEY  ON   ATONEMENTS. 

Burney. —  "SECTION  I. — Natural  or  Human 
Atonement."  —  Page  145. 

Comment. — This  is  certainly  unique. 

Burney. — "Evidently  the  sinner  is  in  a  strait, 
not  God.  The  sinner  needs  a  change,  not  God. 
The  sinner  needs  reconciling  to  God,  not  God  to 
the  sinner.  God,  though  angry  with  the  wicked, 
so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  Son  to  save  it." 
-Page  145. 

Comment. — i.  That  "the  sinner  is  in  a  strait, 
not  God,"  is  a  statement  that  no  one,  not  even  a 
substitutionist,  will  deny.  The  anger  of  God  does 
not  injure  or  in  any  way  affect  the  divine  perfection 
or  glory,  because  it  is  right.  The  trouble  with  the 
sinner  is  that  though  God's  love  would  save  him, 
he  is  in  such  an  attitude  that  God  can  not  justly  do 
it  without  an  atonement  being  made. 

2.  Dr.  Burney  admits  that  God  is  angry  and  must 
be  propitiated.  This  is  all  that  any  substitutionist 
would  claim.  He,  however,  makes  a  distinction 
between  reconciliation  and  propitiation.  God  is 
propitiated,  the  sinner  is  reconciled.  This  is  sim- 
ply a  question  of  words,  because  by  teaching  that 


288  ATONEMENT. 

God  must  be  propitiated,  he  holds  exactly  what  the 
substitutionist  does.  Why  God  needs  to  be  propi- 
tiated is  the  question.  Burney  does  not  answer 
this  directly.  We  gather  from  his  theory  that  it  is 
because  of  sin.  In  this  all  agree.  God's  anger  is 
a  demand  for  the  punishment  of  sin.  This  Burney 
can  not  deny.  He  holds  that  this  punishment  is 
always  inflicted  when  the  sin  is  committed.  We 
deny.  He  makes  it  a  consequence.  We  deny  this 
as  to  transgression,  holding  its  penalty  to  be  future. 
How  is  God  propitiated  ?  We  say  when  the  demand 
for  punishment  has  been  satisfied.  And  when  God 
has  been  propitiated  salvation  is  possible.  Burney 's 
answer  we  will  consider  in  its  place. 

Burney. — "In  the  light  of  such  facts  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  some  plan  or  expedient  is  necessary  to 
relieve  men  of  their  abnormal  enmity  against  God, 
and  thus  restore  them  to  the  state  of  loving  obe- 
dience to  God — obedience  to  God,  to  law  is  the 
only  possible  immunity  against  God's  anger,  as 
revealed  in  the  stern  retributions  of  his  law.  The 
change  needed  is  not  the  adjustment  of  the  divine 
attributes,  but  of  man's  sinful  state;  not  the  re- 
moval of  his  reatus  poencz  by  a  substitute,  but 
reatus  culpcz.  If  this  is  so,  then  the  remedy  must 
be  primarily  moral  in  character,  for  moral  forces 
alone  are  capable  of  producing  moral  changes  in 
free  moral  beings." — Page  145. 

' '  The  real  issue  is,  Does  Christ  save  us  by  suffer- 
ing the  punishment  of  our  sins  in  our  place,  or  by 
delivering  us  from  our  enmity  against  God  and  re- 
storing us  to  a  loving  obedience  ?  " — Page  146. 

Comment. — We  would  put  the  issue  thus:  Are 
we  saved  by  the  I/ord  Jesus  ' '  delivering  us  from 


ATONEMENTS.  289 

our  enmity  against  God,  and  restoring  us  to  a  lov- 
ing obedience,"  or,  does  he  save  us  from  the  penalty 
of  the  law  by  dying  in  our  place,  and  from  the  con- 
sequences of  corruption  by  delivering  us  from  the 
depravity  itself?  In  other  words,  is  the  remedy 
only  moral,  or  is  it  both  moral  and  legal  ?  We  af- 
firm the  last,  Dr.  Burney  only  the  first.  It  is  not  a 
question  between  reatus  poencz  and  reatus  ctilpcs, 
but  the  demand  that  both  shall  be  removed.  We 
hold  the  remedy  is  both  moral  and  legal.  Burney 
ignores  the  legal,  Calvinism  largely  the  moral. 

Burney. — "It  is  possible  to  sin  against  our  neigh- 
bor  

"These  sins  generate  enmities  and  strifes  which 
fill  the  world  with  needless  woes. 

"But  is  there  no  remedy  for  these  ills?  None 
—absolutely  none — if  there  can  be  no  pardon  with- 
out punishment,  as  penalists  persistently  affirm; 
for  if  a  man's  sins  against  his  neighbor  can  not  be 
pardoned  without  being  first  punished,  then  pardon 
is  utterly  worthless." — Page  147. 

Comment. — i.  Either  the  illustration  is  not  per- 
tinent, or  else  his  own  theory  is  in  fault.  Every 
sin  is  punished  when  committed,  according  to  Bur- 
ney; then,  if  he  has  any  pardon  at  all,  sin  pardoned 
is  always  punished.  If  when  we  sin  against  a 
neighbor  punishment  followed,  as  effect  follows 
cause,  you  would  have  a  parallel  to  Burney 's  the- 
ory. This  not  being  true,  the  whole  card  house  of 
natural  atonements  falls  to  the  ground. 

2.  If  it  is  made  a  universal  affirmation,  ( *  no  pardon 
without  punishment,"  Burney 's  criticisms  would 

20 


290  ATONEMENT. 

have  force.  But  what  substitutionist  so  believes  ? 
We  do  not  like  the  expression,  u  no  pardon  without 
punishment,"  and  define  our  own  position  to  be, 
no  pardon  without  satisfaction.  Is  not  this  univers- 
ally true? 

Burney. — "But  there  is  a  remedy  for  these  ills 
which,  if  faithfully  applied,  would  effectually  pre- 
vent the  miseries  arising  from  sins  against  our 
neighbor;  and  common  sense  —  perhaps  I  should 
say  human  instinct — suggests  it.  It  is  confession 
on  the  part  of  the  offender,  and  forgiveness  on  the 
part  of  the  offended. 

"  If  I  sin  against  you,  I  instinctively  know  that  I 
ought  to  confess  and  ask  pardon.  I  feel  this  to  be 
due  to  myself,  as  well  as  to  you,  for  nothing  short 
of  confession  can  relieve  me  of  my  mental  unrest, 
my  stings  of  conscience. 

u  You,  on  the  contrary,  instinctively  know,  when 
I  have  made  confession  and  asked  pardon,  that  you 
ought  to  forgive.  You  feel  that  you  owe  this  to 
yourself,  as  well  as  to  the  offender;  and  not  to 
forgive  is  to  make  yourself,  as  well  as  the  other 
party,  more  or  less  unhappy,  according  to  the  cir- 
cumstances. If  confession  is  made  and  pardon 
granted,  unhappiness  is  prevented.  .  .  . 

u  This  is  atonement- — propitiation  and  reconcilia- 
tion— by  moral  means  and  for  moral  ends."  —Page 
147. 

Comment. — i.  Burney  here  makes  the  same  mis- 
take that  he  does  as  to  law  and  penalty.  The  evils 
of  strifes,  sins  against  our  neighbors,  etc.,  are  all 
subjective  mental  states,  removed  by  confession  and 
pardon.  There  seems  to  be  a  vein  of  idealism  in 
the  Doctor's  philosophy.  The  evils  are  more  than 


ATONEMENTS.  291 

mental  states,  they  affect  health,  character,  prop- 
erty, and  even  life  itself.  No  mental  change  can 
alter  these. 

2.  He  makes  no  distinction  between  private  and 
public  offenses,  or  between  offenses  and  crimes. 
Take  some  illustrations : 

(a)  You  say  something  that  makes  your  neighbor 
angry;  you  see  this,  and  regret  it.  You  go  to  him 
and  offer  an  apology — ask  his  forgiveness.  At  once 
his  anger  is  gone  and  the  offense  pardoned .  This  is  a 
simple  case.  It  is  pardon  without  punishment,  but 
it  is  not  pardon  without  satisfaction.  Your  apology 
covers  over  the  offense — atones  for  it — and  pardon 
is  the  result. 

(8)  Your  neighbor  circulates  an  injurious  report, 
which  does  you  great  harm  and  injures  you  with 
the  people.  Meeting  you  some  time  after,  he  says, 
"Neighbor,  I  have  done  you  a  wrong,  and  I  ask 
your  forgiveness."  What  would  you  do?  What 
would  "human  instinct"  dictate  as  right?  You 
would  demand  that  so  far  as  possible,  he  should 
right  the  wrong  he  had  done  you — that  he  set  you 
right  before  the  people.  If  he  did  this,  he  would, 
to  the  extent  of  his  ability,  atone  for  his  offense,  and 
forgiveness  would  be  his  right.  This  is  pardon 
with  satisfaction.  A  man  who  pardoned  without 
this  satisfaction  would  simply  show  that  he  had  no 
care  for  his  own  honor,  no  self-respect.  Burner's 
position  applied  to  this  case  would  be  that  if  he 
undid  the  wrong  there  could  be  no  pardon,  as  the 
offense  would  no  longer  exist. 

(c)   A  burglar  enters  your  house  and  despoils  you 


292  ATONEMENT. 

of  your  goods.  You  succeed  in  catching  the  thief. 
He  is  sorry  and  begs  to  be  forgiven.  Burney  says, 
if  you  forgive  him,  peace  and  harmony  are  restored 
— atonement  has  been  made.  But  what  of  the 
stolen  property  ?  It  belongs  partly  to  you  and 
partly  to  others.  What  would  u  human  instinct " 
dictate  as  right?  If  you  believed  in  the  sincerity 
of  the  repentance  and  did  not  wish  to  invoke  the 
law,  what  would  you  demand?  Of  coiirse,  the 
restoration  of  the  property.  The  demand  is  in 
every  case  for  restitution ;  and  when  this  has  been 
made,  satisfaction  has  been  rendered,  and  pardon 
accorded.  In  all  cases  the  demand  for  satisfaction 
is  primary,  even  if  it  be  only  for  an  apology;  and 
if  this  is  true  as  to  the  human,  it  is  also  of  the  di- 
vine. 

(d)  Take  still  another  example.  A  scoundrel 
leads  your  son  astray,  or  commits  an  outrage  upon 
your  daughter.  A  life  is  blasted.  The  offender, 
full  of  remorse  for  his  awful  crime,  asks  for  forgive- 
ness. According  to  Dr.  Burney's  theory,  when 
forgiveness  is  accorded,  harmony  is  restored — the 
mental  states  are  all  right.  What  do  our  readers 
think  of  this?  Is  it  in  harmony  with  their  "hu- 
man instincts?"  Rather,  is  it  not  true,  that  they 
would  demand  that  retribution  be  meted  out  ? 

There  is  a  demand  inseparable  from  moral  being 
that  right  doing  should  be  rewarded,  and  that 
wrong-doing  shall  be  punished.  This  demand  may 
partake  of  the  elements  of  our  fallen  humanity  and 
degenerate  into  mere  revenge,  but  it  must  be  met 
and  satisfied. 


ATONEMENTS.  293 

There  can  be  no  harmony  until  this  is  done.  If 
there  is  such  a  demand  in  men  there  must  be  in 
God.  It  is  this  that  Dr.  Burney's  theory  ignores. 
Tested  by  this  example,  its  weakness  can  be  seen 
by  all. 

3.  If  there  is  no  demand  on  God's  part  for  satis- 
faction, there  can  be  nothing — absolutely  nothing — 
in  the  way  of  the  universal  salvation  of  all  men, 
but  the  pleasure  of  the  Deity.  A  limited  atone- 
ment, or  universal  salvation,  are  the  logical  results 
of  a  denial  of  the  demand  for  satisfaction.  Noth- 
ing but  a  demand  for  satisfaction  growing  out  of 
the  divine  holiness  itself  can  prevent  the  universal 
salvation  of  our  race,  unless  God  wills  otherwise. 
To  abandon  this  ground  leaves  no  logical  resting 
place  other  than  extreme  Calvinism  or  Universal- 
ism.  God's  omnipotence  can  at  once  remove  all 
corruption  by  an  act  of  the  divine  will,  or  by  im- 
parting life.  If  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
God  in  conflict  with  this,  there  can  not  possibly 
be  any  barrier  outside  of  God;  and  if  there  is  no 
real  barrier,  then  all  men  will  be  redeemed  and 
saved.  As  we  shall  see,  Burney  is  forced  to  accept 
the  principal  of  satisfaction  when  dealing  with  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  to  avoid  these  logical  issues. 

But  in  doing  this  he  contradicts  himself,  for  noth- 
ing is  plainer  in  his  theory  than  the  denial  of  any 
real  need  for  the  death  of  Christ.  The  reason  for 
this  is  obvious.  If  there  is  any  real  barrier,  grow- 
ing out  of  any  demand  of  God  against  the  sinner, 
that  must  be  met  by  the  death  of  Christ  before  life 
can  be  given  or  imparted,  then,  logically  that  death 


294  ATONEMENT. 

must  have  been  vicarious.  Dr.  Burney  makes  the 
death  aud  resurrection  of  Christ  necessary  to  the 
impartation  of  life,  in  the  same  way  that  the  educa- 
tion and  training  of  a  physician  fits  him  to  cure 
disease.  Then,  those  who  lived  before  Christ  were 
without  salvation;  or,  the  non-penal  theory  is  open 
to  the  same  objection  Dr.  Burney  urges  against  sub- 
stitution, namely,  that  it  "is  impossible  because  it 
conditions  a  past  event  upon  a  future  event."  If 
nothing  but  the  removal  of  depravity  is  needed, 
this  being  by  the  power  of  God  alone,  we  may 
justly  expect  that  all  men  will  be  saved.  As  the 
depravity  comes  without  any  volition  or  fault  of 
our  own,  it  would  certainly  be  just  to  remove  it,  if 
power  only  is  needed.  The  non-penal  theory  can 
not  escape,  logically,  from  a  limited  atonement,  or 
Universalism.  That  we  do  not  misrepresent  Dr. 
Burney  when  we  say  that  his  theory  shows  no  real 
need  for  the  death  of  Christ,  is  evident  from  his  own 
language : 

"  His  mediation,  too,  was  just  as  real  and  as 
efficacious  before  his  incarnation  as  it  is  now.  He 
was  always  the  'light  of  the  world,'  'the  way,  and 
the  truth,  .and  the  life,'  'the  resurrection  and  the 
life.'  His  incarnation,  death,  and  resurrection  add 
nothing  to  his  life-giving,  soul-saving  power.  They 
rather  are  the  means  by  which  he  reveals  himself  to 
the  world,  and  manifests  his  love  to  humanity, 
demonstrates  his  power  over  sin  and  death,  and 
shows  himself  an  all-sufficient  Savior,  able  to  save 
to  the  uttermost  all  that  trust  in  him." — Page  10. 

4.  But  underlying  all  human  forgiveness,  as 
taught  in  the  Bible,  is  the  glorious  principle  that 


ATONEMENTS.  295 

we  are  to  forgive  "even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake 
hath  forgiven  you."  Read  this  in  the  light  of  the 
trespass-offering,  and  it  will  be  seen  that,  underly- 
ing all  "natural  atonements"  (as  Burney  calls 
them),  is,  after  all,  the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Burney. — u  The  Bible  usage  of  the  word  atone- 
ment." 

"  I  hope  to  be  pardoned  for  saying  the  very  first 
thing  necessary  is  to  lay  down  the  dictionaries, 
which  reflect  the  vices  as  well  as  the  virtues  of 
theological  authors  of  the  last  eight  or  ten  centuries, 
and  take  up  the  Bible  and  test  in  the  crucible  of 
common  sense  the  word  as  there  used." — Page  162. 

Comment. — i.  It  is  always  prima  facie  evidence 
of  error  when  a  writer  is  compelled  to  give  to  words 
new  meanings,  rejecting  those  recognized  by  the 
scholarship  of  the  world.  It  may  be  true  that  the 
world  has  been  mistaken,  but  the  presumption  is 
that  the  piety  and  scholarship  of  the  world  is  right, 
and  the  new  idea  wrong.  To  speak  of  testing  "in 
the  crucible  of  common  sense,"  or  similar  language, 
is  always  the  method  of  new  ideas  put  forth  by 
strong  minds.  The  wildest  and  most  visionary  the- 
orists are  those  who  use  such  language  the  most. 
Truth  never  needs  to  make  such  appeals,  as  the 
"  true  is  always  the  clear." 

In  a  living  language,  like  the  English,  words  are 
constantly  acquiring  new  meanings.  An  English 
dictionary  gives  the  meanings  that  words  have  in 
use  when  the  dictionary  is  compiled.  So  it  may 
reflect  the  vices  of  theological  writers.  But  in  a 
dead  language  it  is  different.  The  compiler  goes 


/    • 


296  ATONEMENT. 

back  to  the  time  the  word  was  in  use,  and  from  its 
usage  at  that  time,  defines  its  meaning.  Burney 
assails  either  the  honesty  or  ability  of  those  who 
compiled  our  Hebrew  and  Greek  Lexicons. 

2.  The  admission  that  the  dictionaries  are  against 
him  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  controversy, 
is  an  admission  that  the  scholarship  of  the  world  is 
against  him. 

Burney. — "You  do  not  need  to  be  informed  that 
the  Hebrew  word  kaphar,  translated  in  our  English 
Bibles  atonement,  means  a  literal  covering,  and  is 
the  name  given  to  the  top,  or  lid,  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  (Ex.  xxv.)  as  a  protection  to  its  contents. 
Of  course  the  word  when  used  of  men  and  their 
sins  is  taken,  not  in  its  literal,  but  in  a  tropical  sense. 
....  The  lid  of  the  ark  was  intended  to  protect 
its  contents  from  injury,  rather  than  to  deliver 
them  from  injury  already  existing.  But  the  word 
is  not  generally  used  in  this  sense.  Sin  exists  and 
a  remedy  is  required.  The  remedy  is  found  only  in 
atonement.  Thus  far  all  agree.  But  in  what  does 
atonement  consist,  and  how  does  it  deliver  from 
sin?" — Page  163. 

Comment.—\.  "Thus  far  all  agree."  That  de- 
pends upon  the  application  of  the  words.  If  it 
refers  to  all  that  goes  before  in  the  above  extract, 
we  think  that  none  would  agree.  If  it  means  that 
the  remedy  for  sin  is  found  in  the  atonement,  then 
we  agree. 

2.  Dr.  Burney 's  statement  as  to  kaphar  we  can 
not  receive;  and,  after  reading  the  above,  no  longer 
wonder  that  he  rejects  the  dictionaries. 

First.  Kaphar  is  not  the  name  given  to  the  lid  of 
the  ark. 


ATONEMENTS.  297 

The  verb  *")§3  (kaphar)  means  primarily  "to 
cover. ' ' 

The  corresponding  nonn,  DHJD  (kippurim), 
means  primarily  a  covering.  This  primary  mean- 
ing, however,  is  not  their  Bible  meaning,  as  they 
are  never  so  translated.  These  are  the  only  words 
translated  ' '  atonement, ' '  and  neither  is  applied  to 
the  ark. 

Second.  The  word  D*")£5  (kapporetti)  is  the 
word  everywhere  translated  ( '  mercy-seat, ' '  but 
never  ' '  atonement, ' '  never  "  lid  "  or  "  covering. ' ' 
It  is  a  cognate  word,  but  not  the  word  for  atone- 
ment. We  might  as  readily  say  that  baptize  is  the 
name  given  to  a  baptistery. 

The  idea  that  it  was  to  "protect"  the  contents 
of  the  ark  has  no  foundation  whatever.  Protect 
from  what? 

Third.  Was  the  kapporeth  the  lid  or  covering  of 
the  ark  ?  Two  questions  are  embraced  in  this. 

(a)  Was  the  kapporeth  in  fact  the  lid  or  covering 
of  the  ark?  We  have  examined  many  scores  of 
writers,  Jewish  and  Christian,  and,  while  most  of 
them  say  that  it  was,  the  only  proof  given  is  a  ref- 
erence to  Bx.  xxv.  We  conclude  from  this  that  it 
is  simply  an  opinion  from  what  is  there  said. 
After  the  instruction  to  make  the  ark  follows  the 
instruction  to  make  the  mercy-seat,  or  kapporeth; 
the  narrative  indicating  that  they  were  distinct  and 
separate  things. 

"And  thou  shalt  make  a  mercy  seat  of  pure  gold, 
....  and  thou  shalt  make  two  cherubims  .... 
in  the  two  ends  of  the  mercy-seat." — Verses  17,  18. 


298  ATONEMENT. 

"And  thou  shalt  put  the  mercy-seat  above  upon 
the  ark" — Verse  21. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  ark  had  no  top,  and 
that  the  mercy-seat  when  placed  011  the  ark  formed 
a  top,  or  does  it  simply  mean  that  the  mercy-seat 
was.  placed  on  the  ark  ? 

The  answer  is  only  an  opinion,  as  there  is  nothing 
to  guide  us  but  the  verse  thus  quoted.  Our  readers 
can  form  an  opinion  for  themselves. 

(6)  Does  the  name  kapporeth  express  this  idea  of 
a  covering?  This  we  have  no  hesitation  in  an- 
swering in  the  negative. 

"The  term  does  not,  as  many  modern  critics 
understand,  signify  a  lid  in  general  ;  but  being  a 
derivative  from  Piel,  *1$5>  it  is  to  be  understood 
to  mean  an  instrument  of  atonement,  ....  as 
the  Septuagint  correctly  translates  it,  DM.air^nio^."- 
Oehler. 

Oehler,  and  many  of  the  best  critics,  come  to  the 
very  opposite  conclusion  to  Burney,  because  they  ar- 
gue that  the  use  of  a  derivative  of  kaphar  indicates 
that  it  expresses   atonement  and   not  a  covering 
Many  reasons  could  be  given  in  support  of  this 

The  use  of  hilasteerion  in  the  Septuagint  and  in 
the  New  Testament  to  represent  kapporeth  fixes 
the  meaning  of  it.  Hilasteerion  never  means  a 
covering.  What  is  said  of  the  "  mercy  -  seat  " 
shows  that  it  designates  something  different  to  a 
lid.  Kaphar  and  its  derivatives,  being  applied  to 
express  atonement,  are  never  used  in  their  primary 
sense  in  the  Bible.  The  words  are  set  apart  to  ex- 


ATONEMENTS.  299 

press  the  higher  meaning  which  is  always  con- 
nected with  every  use  of  the  word.  That  kap- 
poreth  meant  more  than  a  mere  lid  is  shown  by  its 
modern  use.  The  Jews  have  a  ceremony  on  the 
preparation  for  the  Day  of  Atonement  called  "  Kap- 
poreth,"  in  which  the  idea  of  substitution  is 
forcibly  brought  out. 

Last,  but  not  least,  when  we  leave  the  type  and 
come  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  he  himself  is  the  true 
kapporeth.  "Whom  God  hath  set  forth."  For 
what?  "A  propitiation"  —  Greek  hilasteerion, 
Hebrew  kapporeth — "through  faith  in  his  blood. n 
Christ  himself  is  the  kapporeth,  the  place  of  mercy, 
the  propitiatory — the  mercy-seat.  But  the  non- 
penal  theory  has  no  use  for  a  mercy-seat,  and  so  it 
becomes  a  lid,  or  covering. 

3.  As  Dr.  Burney  rejects  the  lexicons,  it  is  disap- 
pointing to  find  that  this  is  his  only  attempt  to 
explain  the  Hebrew  word  used.  A  very  sorry  at- 
tempt, at  the  best.  We  have  a  right  to  expect  a 
clear-cut  definition  when  the  dictionaries  are  re- 
pudiated. But  this  Burney  does  not  give,  using  the 
word  in  such  a  flexible  way  that  it  may  mean 
almost  any  thing.  We  have  looked  through 
his  book  carefully,  and  the  following  extracts 
give  the  nearest  approach  to  a  definition  that  we 
have  found : 

Burney. — u  Here  we  have  atonement  in  its  full 
sense,  including  reconciliation,  propitiation,  and 
pardon." — Page  156. 

"This  is  atonement — propitiation  and  reconcilia- 
tion."— Page  148. 


300  ATONEMENT. 

"The  atoning,  or  propitiating  power." — Page 
174. 

''The  atonement  or  propitiation." — Page  190. 

Comment. — i.  Why  is  pardon  left  out  in  the 
second,  and  pardon  and  reconciliation  in  the  two 
last  ?  If  it  includes  all  three,  it  is  not  synonymous 
with  propitiation,  because  Burney  insists  upon  the 
distinction  between  propitiation  and  reconciliation. 
God  is  propitiated,  man  is  reconciled.  As  atone- 
ment is  not  made  to  men,  but  for  men,  how  can  it 
include  reconciliation  if  God  is  not  reconciled  ? 

2.  In  the  last  two  quotations  he  makes  atone- 
ment and  propitiation  to  be  synonymous.  This 
is  true  as  to  the  original,  as  the  Greek  word  trans- 
lated "propitiation"  everywhere  translates  the  He- 
brew for  atonement  in  the  Septuagint. 

Burney. — "Here  we  have  a  real  atonement,  a 
deliverance   from    temporal    death,   by   a   turning 
away   or    appeasement    of    God's   indignation. "- 
Page  173. 

Comment. — i.  What  is  an  unreal  atonement? 

2.  Burney  has  been  confounding  condition  and 
consequent  so  much  when  dealing  with  substitu- 
tion that  it  comes  back  to  plague  him  in  his  own 
argument.  Atonement  is  never  ' '  deliverance  from 
temporal  death, ' '  but  we  may  be  (if  that  is  threat- 
ened) delivered  from  temporal  death  by  making 
atonement,  or  appeasing  the  anger. 

Burney. — "These  atonements  consisted  exclu- 
sively in  turning  away  God's  anger — that  is,  in 
making  him  merciful  or  propitious." — Page  188. 


ATONEMENTS.  301 

Comment. — i.  u  Making  him  merciful "  is  objec- 
tionable. 

2.  After  comparing  these  extracts,  it  can  be  seen 
that  Dr.  Burney  has  no  well-defined  meaning  for 
the  word  "atonement." 

In  connection  with  them  read  the  definition  of 
Gesenius,  as  given  in  our  introduction.  It  is  clear, 
scholarly,  and  unanswerable.  Starting  (as  all  true 
definitions  must)  with  the  root  meaning  of  the 
word — u  to  cover  " — Gesenius  makes  atonement  to 
consist  in  appeasing  the  anger  of  God  by  a  covering 
over  of  the  offense.  Whatever  does  this  satisfies — 
expiates — and  thus  appeases.  It  is  this  idea  of 
covering  over  by  making  satisfaction  that  Burney 
seems  to  reject.  He  ignores  the  root  meaning  of 
the  word — ignores  the  covering  of  sin  by  an  expia- 
tion— and  makes  atonement  simply  to  mean  the 
making  God  favorable.  This  is  all  we  can  gather 
from  his  book. 

The  idea  "to  cover"  is  primary  and  essential  to 
the  word  kaphar  in  every  use  of  it.  Take  as  illus- 
trations the  two  first  instances  of  its  use  in  the 
Bible. 

(a)  Gen.  vi.  14:  "Pitch  it  within  and  without 
with  pitch." 

This  is  as  near  its  primary  meaning  as  can  be. 
It  is  like  the  words  "paint  it" — that  is,  cover  it 
over,  with  pitch.  The  ark  was  a  type  of  Christ 
(i  Peter  iii.  21),  the  true  ark,  and  hence  the  use  of 
kaphar  here  is  significant.  As  one  writer  says, 

'  The  gopher  wood,  the  material  of  the  ark,  I 
can  say  little  of,  but  it  speaks  of  death  (the  tree 


302  ATONEMENT. 

cut  down)  as  that  by  which  alone  death  could  be 
met  for  us.  The  u  pitch  "  is  kopher,  ....  prob- 
ably a  resin  from  the  gopher  wood  itself,  identical, 
too,  with  the  word  "atonement"  in  one  of  its 
forms.  Here,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  first  hint  we 
find  in  Scripture  of  something  beyond  death  which 
is  implied  in  and  needed  for  atonement.  Not  the 
gopher  wood  alone  would  have  kept  out  the  waters 
of  judgment.  Not  death  alone  lay  upon  men,  and 
for  true  substitution  not  death  alone  needed  to  be 

borne The  kaphar  must  pitch  the  seams  of 

the  ark  of  salvation,  that  it  may  bring  its  freight 
of  living  souls  safelv  through  the  flood." 

(b)  Gen.  xxxii.  :  "I  will  appease  him  with  the 
present. ' ' 

Jacob  had  wronged  Esau,  and  fearing  his  anger 
he  sought  to  appease  (kaphar)  that  anger  by  the 
present  that  he  sent.  This  present  was  to  "cover  " 
over  his  offense,  and  thus  appease,  or  propitiate. 

This  present  was  an  expiation — a  satisfaction— 
and  by  it  he  sought  to  atone  for  his  offense.     But 
we   have  made  sufficiently  plain    the  meaning  of 
atonement. 

Dr.  Burney  next  gives  some  Bible  examples  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  as  being  out  of  harmony 
with  the  idea  of  substitution.  As  they  all  bring 
out  substitution  in  the  strongest  light,  we  will  ex- 
amine his  exegesis  and  endeavor  to  show  their  true 
meaning.  The  first  example,  Ivev.  xvi.  20,  Atone- 
ment for  the  Holy  Place,  etc. ,  we  have  already  ex- 
plained in  the  chapter  on  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
so  it  only  remains  to  examine  the  exposition  of  Dr. 
Burney. 


ATONEMENTS.  303 

Burney. — u  The  holy  place  had  no  sins  to  be 
punished,  but  God  required  it  to  be  relieved  of 
such  uncleanness  as  comes  of  connection  with 
the  unclean;  as  the  uncleanness  that  comes  of 
contact  with  a  dead  body.  But  the  same  sacrificial 
blood  that  sanctifies  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  of 
the  worshiper  is  capable  of  sanctifying  to  the  ritual 
purification  of  the  altar  and  holy  place  (Heb.  ix. 
13,  21,  22).  By  the  blood,  the  altar,  etc.,  were 
sanctified — to  sanctify  is  to  make  holy,  to  conse- 
crate to  God,  and  whatever  is  thus  sanctified  is  ac- 
ceptable, or  well  pleasing  to  him. 

"But  to  make  acceptable  is  to  make  atone- 
ment. .  .  . 

' '  The  penal  theory  requires  us  to  believe  that  the 
sufferings  of  the  kid  were  penal,  and  that  these  suf- 
ferings made  atonement  for  the  altar,  or  rendered  it 
acceptable  to  God;  and  thus  requires  us  to  believe 
that  God  substitutionally  punished  the  altar,  in 
order  to  make  it  acceptable  to  him,  or  in  order  to 
reconcile  himself  to  it.  If  this  is  credible,  nothing 
is  incredible." — Page  165. 

Comment. — i.  Dr.  Burney  sees  nothing  but  "pe- 
nal "  sufferings  everywhere.  He  has  spiritual 
"colorblindness."  He  can  not  see  that  truth  is 
many-sided,  that  the  work  of  Christ  has  many  re- 
lations, and  is  therefore  presented  under  many 
aspects.  No  substitutionist  holds  that  there  was  a 
vicarious  punishment  of  the  holy  place,  nor  is  it 
the  logical  outcome  of  their  theory. 

2.  It  was  rather  a  typical  purification  than  a 
"ritual"  (like  that  for  a  dead  body).  It  is  ex- 
pressly said, 

' '  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  patterns  of 
things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these-} 


304  ATONEMENT. 

but   the   heavenly  things   themselves  with   better 
sacrifices  than  these." — Heb.  ix.  23. 

This  verse  brings  out  several  things  of  im- 
portance. 

First.  That  the  purification  was  typical  of  one 
made  for  the  heavenly  things  themselves.  Does 
Burney  believe  this  last  was  ' '  ritual ' '  also  ?  How 
will  he  apply  the  type  ? 

Second.  This  purification  was  linked  with  the 
blood  shed  for  the  "remission  of  sins; "  that  is  the 
force  of  the  "therefore." 

Third.  The  passage  does  not  teach  that  heaven 
needed  to  be  purified,  but  the  "heavenly  things." 
As  Christians,  we  are  made  "to  sit  together  in 
heavenly  places,"  being  "partakers  of  the  heaven- 
ly calling."  This  is  the  result  of  union  with 
Christ.  We  are  regarded,  in  reference  to  our  stand- 
ing, as  taken  out  of  the  world,  as  being  in  the 
heavenly  place.  But  to  bring  us  there,  sin  must 
be  remitted;  hence  the  typical  atonement  for  the 
holy  place.  See  exposition  in  full  in  * '  Day  of 
Atonement." 

Burney. — "Poll  tax  atonement "  (Ex.  xxx.  11-16). 
— Page  168. 

Comment. — This  title  is  taking,  but  misleading 
and  unscriptural.  It  was  not  a  poll-tax  that  made 
atonement  (even  if  we  call  it  a  poll-tax),  but  the 
money  was  given  '  ''for  atonement. ' ' 

Burney. — "This  atonement,  as  appears  from  the 
facts,  was  made  not  to  secure  a  return  of  lost  favor, 
but  to  prevent  the  loss  of  favor  already  in  posses- 


ATONEMENTS.  305 

sion;  just  as  by  paying  our  taxes  we  prevent  the 
fines  and  penalties  which  come  from  not  paying 
them.  In  this  regard  this  atonement  is  in  exact 
accord  with  the  lid  or  covering  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant. 

It  protects  from  injury  rather  than  delivers  from 
evils  previously  incurred. 

No  blood  was  shed  ....  and  no  sins  were  re- 
mitted, because  there  were  none  to  remit. 

This  atonement  was  not  made  by  a  priest,  because 
the  particular  sin  to  which  it  related,  not  having 
been  committed,  no  mediator  was  necessary.  Ev- 
er}' man  was  his  own  atoner,  just  as  any  man,  not 
guilty  of  any  particular  sin,  may  secure  divine  favor 
by  avoiding  that  sin. 

This  atonement,  called  a  ransom  for  the  soul, 
consisting  purely  and  exclusively  of  personal  obe- 
dience to  the  perceptive  requirements  of  the  law. 
It  was  atonement  by  perfect  obedience  and  by  suf- 
fering of  no  kind,  penal  or  otherwise.  On  this  wise 
the  unfallen  angels,  I  suppose,  make  atonement, 
propitiate,  satisfy  justice,  law,  God,  and  conscience, 
and  enjoy  perfect  and  continuous  blessedness." — 
Page  169. 

Comment. — It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  analyze 
Burney's  positions,  because  he  rejects  the  received 
meaning  of  the  word  atonement,  and  uses  it  so 
loosely.  If  atonement  is  to  propitiate  "by  turning 
away  God's  anger,"  where  is  the  atonement  from  the 
stand-point  of  Dr.  Burney's  exegesis?  "It protects 
from  injury,"  but  does  not  deliver  from  evils  previ- 
ously incurred.  Burney  has  to  juggle  with  the 
word  to  get  an  atonement  out  of  the  ' '  tax. ' '  He 
leaves  out  the  idea  of  turning  away  the  anger  o: 
God,  and  makes  atonement  to  be  a  keeping  away 

21 


306  ATONEMENT. 

of  that  anger,  and  then  has  the  angels  making 
atonement  in  heaven!  This  atonement  does  not 
deliver,  although  a  "  ransom!"  It  does  not  turn 
away  anger,  for  no  sin  has  been  committed,  yet  it 
propitiates!  On  the  positive  side,  he  seems  to  make 
atonement  and  obedience  to  be  synonymous — "  this 
atonement  consisted  purely  and  exclusively  of  per- 
sonal obedience."  We  should  think  that  where 
there  is  personal  obedience  there  could  be  no  propi- 
tiation, unless  God  is  angry  because  of  what  we 
might  do,  even  if  it  never  occurred. 

The  true  exegesis  of  the  passage  is,  that  the 
money  was  given  to  the  Lord,  not  as  making  atone- 
ment, but  to  "make  an  atonement."  The  use  to 
which  it  was  put  points  this  out. 

u  Thou  shalt  take  the  atonement  money  of  the 
children  of  Israerand  shalt  appoint  it  for  the  serv- 
ice of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  that  it 
may  be  a  memorial  unto  the  children  of  Israel 
before  the  Lord,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your 
souls." — Lev.  xxx.  1 6. 

Here  the  reason  for  the  utax"  is  seen.  If  God 
was  to  take  up  his  abode  with  his  people,  it  could 
only  be  on  the  ground  that  gave  them  a  standing 
before  him.  Hence,  the  tabernacle,  its  ritual,  and 
its  service.  The  blood  was  the  ground  of  all,  ufor 
it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement  for  the 
soul. "  It  was  the  tabernacle  that  God  dwelt  within. 
These  things  entailed  expense,  hence  the  gift;  or, 
as  Dr.  Burney  calls  it,  the  u  tax."  It  was  that  which 
was  done  with  the  money,  when  by  its  means  the 
tabernacle  was  set  up,  that  atonement  was  made. 


ATONEMENTS.  307 

Rich  and  poor  must  give  alike,  all  are  on  common 
ground,  as  to  atonement. 

Burney, — u Atonement  in  relation  to  the  golden 
calf." — Ex.  xxxii.  31-33;  Dent.  ix.  18,  19. 

' '  This  is  expressly  called  an  atonement  (verse 
30)." — Page  170. 

Comment. — i.  This  is  "  expressly  "  what  it  does 
not  say.  The  words  are  " peradventure  I  shall 
make  an  atonement."  In  view  of  this  "  perad- 
venture,"  Burney  misses  the  force  of  the  whole 
passage. 

The  Israelites  had  solemnly  covenanted  to  keep 
the  law.  Three  times  they  had  made  this  covenant, 
u  all  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do  and  be  obe- 
dient." (Ex.  xxiv.  3-8;  xix.  8.)  Before  they  had 
entered  into  this  covenant  their  blessings  had  been 
on  the  ground  of  grace,  so  that  we  find  no  plague, 
no  fiery  serpents.  But  the  history  of  the  world  is 
only  that  of  man's  failure  and  the  ruin  that  sin 
entails,  so  we  find  them,  within  sight  of  the  cloud 
and  the  fire,  worshiping  a  golden  calf.  Moses 
breaks  the  tables  of  stone,  commands  that  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  be  enforced,  and  "about  three  thou- 
sand are  slain." 

The  next  day  Moses  upbraids  them  with  their  sin 
and  seeks  the  presence  of  God,  leaving  only  a 
* '  perad venture  ' '  for  the  comfort  of  the  people. 
Moses  earnestly  pleads  for  them,  u  blot  me  out," 
etc.  What  answer  does  God  give?  He  answers 
according  to  the  unbending  principles  of  holy  law. 
The  one  that  has  sinned,  "him  will  I  blot  out." 


308  ATONEMENT. 

The  "  perad venture  "  does  not  avail,  "  the  soul  that 
sinneth  it  shall  die." 

2.  Burney  quotes  Deut.  ix.  19,  where  Moses  tells 
how  he  fasted  and  prayed  for  forty  days  and  nights 
and  the  "  L,ord  hearkened  unto  me  at  that  time 
also,"  as  proof  that  the  intercession  of  Moses  was 
expressly  called  an  atonement.  How  does  he  link 
them  together?  Purely  by  assumption.  Moses 
had  fasted  forty  days  when  the  law  was  given. 
When  he  went  into  the  mount  with  a  "  perad  vent- 
ure," we  are  not  told  how  long  he  stopped,  but 
this  was  not  the  time  referred  to  in  Deuteronomy. 
The  only  answer  God  gave  to  Moses  was,  "I  will 
visit  their  sin  upon  them."  (Ex.  xxxii.  35.)  So  we 
read,  after  Moses  came  down  from  the  mountain, 
that  the  Lord  plagued  the  people.  Deut.  ix.  19, 
has  reference  to  the  time  when  Moses  went  up  a 
second  time  to  receive  the  law,  and  when  on  his 
return  his  face  shone,  because  God  had  revealed 
himself  in  grace,  so  that  he  had  to  cover  his  face 
with  a  veil.  A  veil  that  remains  for  the  Jew  even 
to  this  day. 

The  people  mourn  because  of  the  plague,  strip 
themselves  of  their  ornaments  (xxxiii.  6),  and  repent 
of  their  sins.  Then  Moses  takes  the  tabernacle  and 
pitches  it  u  outside  the  camp,"  to  indicate  that  God 
had  withdrawn  from  his  people.  The  eyes  of  all 
Israel  are  turned  in  that  direction,  and  Moses  passes 
in  to  seek  the  lyord  in  the  tabernacle,  and  there 
grace  is  extended.  Many  in  our  day  besides  Burney 
are  trying  to  find  atonement  at  old  Sinai.  But  no 
grace  is  found  on  Sinai,  and  Moses  comes  down 


ATONEMENTS.  309 

with  atonement  not  made,  and  God's  anger  not  ap- 
peased. But  when  he  seeks  him  in  the  tabernacle, 
on  the  ground  of  the  blood,  how  different !  There, 
and  there  only,  grace  is  found! 

Burney. — "God  was  propitiated,  atonement  was 
made,  and  divine  anger  turned  away,  and  the  people 
spared,  not  because  their  sins  were  expiated,  but 
for  Moses'  sake. 

They  were  spared  not  for  the  sake  of  what  Moses 
did,  but  for  the  sake  of  what  he  was,  and  he  was 
what  he  was  because  of  what  he  did,  or  because 
of  his  persistent  fidelity  and  obedience  to  God  and 
love  for  his  people." — Page  171. 

Comment. — Dr.  Burney  misplaces  Deut.  ix.,  so 
that  much  of  what  he  says  is  not  pertinent.  But  if 
they  were  pardoned  because  of  the  earnest  prayers 
of  Moses,  it  would  be  something  he  did,  after  all! 
Burney  confounds  Intercession  with  Atonement. 

Burney. — "No  typical  beast  is  slain,  or  sacrificial 
blood  is  shed."— Page  171. 

Comment. — What  an  assumption  !  If  he  had 
said  that  there  was  no  record  of  a  beast  being  slain, 
we  would  have  assented.  But  when  he  says,  dog- 
matically, no  beast  is  slain,  no  blood  is  shed,  we 
simply  ask,  How  do  you  know?  If  there  is  any 
meaning  or  lesson  in  the  fact  that  grace  was  found 
in  the  tabernacle  and  not  on  the  Mount,  it  must 
have  been  that  the  law  knows  no  mercy,  while  the 
tabernacle  stood  in  the  power  of  the  blood.  Why- 
was  the  tabernacle  set  up  ?  Why  did  the  people 
look  to  it  in  their  distress  ?  Where  is  it  recorded 


310  ATONEMENT. 

that  the  daily  sacrifice  ceased?  It  is  God's  fixed 
law  in  every  age  "that  without  shedding  of  blood 
is  no  remission;"  therefore,  whether  mentioned  or 
not,  the  logical  inference  is  that  the  blood  was  shed, 
for  it  is  "  the  blood  that  maketh  an  atonement. ' ' 

Neither  exegetically  nor  typically  can  he  get  his 
non-penal  theory  out  of  this  scripture. 

Burney. — "Atonement  for  treason. n  —  Num.  xvi. 
41-48. — Page  172. 

"  Here  we  have  a  real  atonement,  a  deliverance 
from  temporal  death,  by  the  turning  away  or  ap- 
peasement of  God's  indignation.  What  saved  the 
people  was  the  prompt  refusal  of  Moses  and  Aaron 
to  get  out  of  the  way,  and  their  self-sacrificing  pur- 
pose to  share  the  destiny  of  their  people,  to  die  with 
them,  if  they  must  die.  This  was  obedience  to  one 
requirement  of  the  divine  law — loving  their  neigh- 
bor as  themselves.  This  was  heroic  fidelity  to 
their  people. 

But  they  were  not  less  faithful  to  the  other 
requirement  of  that  law — loving  the  Lord  their 
God  with  all  their  hearts.  This  love  they  demon- 
strated by  their  reverence  and  prostration  on  their 
faces  and  the  burning  of  incense,  which  is  the 
divinely  appointed  symbol  of  confession,  prayer, 
and  supplication." — Page  173. 

Comment. — i.  The  conceit  that  by  falling  down, 
Moses  and  Aaron  refused  to  get  out  of  the  way, 
necessitates  a  very  materialistic  idea  of  the  God- 
head, and  the  means  by  which  the  plague  was  in- 
flicted. Dr.  Burney  seems  to  think  they  stood  in  the 
way,  as  if  a  masked  battery  was  about  to  be  fired. 
On  that  supposition,  the  falling  down  might  have 


ATONEMENTS.  311 

been  the  best  plan  of  getting  out  of  the  way ! 
Moses  and  Aaron,  by  falling  down,  did  not  stop  the 
plague,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  evidence  that  they 
wanted  to  share  the  doom  of  the  people. 

2.  It  is  an  utter  assumption  that  to  share  their 
fate  would  be  a  fulfillment  of  the  law  of  love.     The 
death  threatened  was  the  just  penalty  of  the  law 
they  had  violated.     If  the  law  of  love  required  that 
they  should  ask  to  share  this  penalty,  when  they  are 
innocent  of  any  part  in  the  sin,  then  the  same  logic 
would  require  that  we  ask  to  share  the  fate  of  the 
lost !     It  might  have  shown  their  affection  for  their 
people,  or  their  national  pride,  but  not  obedience  to 
the  law  of  love,  the  essence  of  which  is  submission 
to  the  will  of  God. 

3.  If,  as  Burney  argues,  it  was  a  command  to  get 
out  of  the  way,  and  they  remained  /;/,  then  it  logic- 
ally follows  that  God  commanded  something  wrong, 
and  was  propitiated  by  disobedience  !     Burney  ad- 
mits the  last,  and  in  answer  to  the  question,  u  How 
could  disobedience  please  God  ?  "  says  the  command, 
like  that  to  Abraham,  uwas  a  trial  of  their  faith." 
But  Abraham  did   not  disobey,  nor  would  it  have 
been  wrong  to  have  slain  Isaac.     If  to  obey  Moses 
and  Aaron  would  be  required  to  violate  the  law  of 
love,  then  the  command  was  wrong;  and  by  giving 
it,  God  contradicted  himself.     Again,  this  exegesis 
holds  out  the  idea  that  they  showed  more  love  than 
God  did,  and  that  the  punishment  was  wrong.    We 
have  here  a  moral  fog  as  to  the  law  of  love  that  be- 
wilders us  in  innumerable  absurdities. 

4.  That  Moses  and  Aaron  loved  God   with   all 


ATONEMENT. 

their  hearts,  he  thinks  is  shown  by  their  falling 
down,  and  by  their  burning  incense.  He  can  find 
' '  perfect  obedience, ' '  whenever  his  theory  requires 
it,  in  very  little  things.  From  these  physical  acts 
he  reasons  they  loved  God  supremely.  And  that 
in  the  presence  of  an  act  of  disobedience!  At  the 
most,  in  view  of  this  disobedience  (from  Dr.  Burney's 
stand-point),  all  that  Burney  could  claim  would  be 
that  they  loved  the  people  better  than  they  did  God. 

Was  the  prostration  voluntary,  or  involuntary? 
Was  it  an  act  of  worship  or  of  fear  f  Does  it  im- 
ply that  they  prostrated  themselves  as  an  act  of 
worship,  or  that  the  fearful  announcement  so  over- 
came them  that  they  ' '  fell  upon  their  faces  ' '  from 
fear  and  horror?  Which  is  the  most  natural? 
What  would  be  the  emotions  aroused  at  once  by  such 
an  announcement,  worship  or  fear  ? 

Again,  Burney's  exposition  of  the  incense  is  out 
of  all  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  and 
is  the  cause  of  his  failure  to  see  a  ' '  real ' '  atone- 
ment in  this  place.  He  makes  the  incense — u  the 
divinely  appointed  symbol  of  confession,  prayer, 
and  supplication,"  which  it  never  is.  The  only 
verse  that  links  incense  and  prayer  is  Rev.  viii.  3, 
which  shows  that  it  is  not  a  symbol  of  prayer. 

"And  there  was  given  unto  him  much  incense, 
that  he  should  offer  it  with  the  prayers  of  all  saints 
upon  the  golden  altar  which  was  before  the  throne. 
And  the  smoke  of  the  incense,  which  came  with 
the  prayers  of  the  saints." 

It  was  the  incense  that  gave  efficacy  to  the 
prayers,  as  the  Greek  more  emphatically  shows. 


ATONEMENTS.  313 

What  is  this  incense  that  as  a  sweet  smell  goes  up 
to  God,  and  gives  efficacy  to  the  prayers  of  God's 
people  ? 

In  this  connection  we  remember  that  the  burnt- 
offering  is,  literally,  the  incense-offering,  it  being 
the  same  Hebrew  word  that  is  translated  "burnt  " 
and  "incense."  The  brazen  altar  was  literally  the 
incense  altar.  We  have  shown  the  meaning  of  the 
burnt-offering  in  the  chapter  on  the  offerings. 
What  was  incense  at  the  brazen  altar  was  at  the 
golden,  also.  The  fire  on  the  brazen  altar  never 
went  out,  night  or  day — the  infinite  value  of 
Christ's  work  being  ever  before  God.  With  the 
fire  from  this  altar,  the  incense  must  be  burnt,  and 
the  death  of  Aaron's  sons  shows  the  fearful  result 
of  burning  "strange  fire." 

When  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  the  high-priest 
went  into  the  holiest  with  the  blood,  the  incense 
must  first  be  burnt,  the  cloud  of  smoke  ascend,  and 
the  sweet  smell  penetrate  into  every  part  of  the 
tabernacle.  What  is  it  that  answers  to  all  this? 
Nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  but  the  merits  of 
Christ's  atoning  sacrifice.  This  is  a  sweet  smell 
before  the  lyord,  this  is  the  ground  of  approach,  it 
is  this  that  gives  efficacy  to  the  prayers  of  saints. 
To  come  with  any  other  merit  is  to  bring  "strange 
fire."  God  grant  that  Burney's  theory  may  not 
cause  men  to  come  with  ' '  strange  fire, ' '  only  to 
perish  before  the  L,ord. 

With  this  exposition,  how  clear  and  how  grand 
was  the  atonement  made  by  Aaron  !  Bringing 
the  censer  with  its  burning  incense,  he  swings  it 


314  ATONEMENT. 

between  the  Lord  and  the  plague-stricken  people; 
and  as  the  sweet  smell  of  the  incense  goes  np,  the 
all-atoning  merit  of  Christ  gives  to  priestly  interces- 
sion its  power,  and  the  plague  is  stayed. 

In  the  same  way,  this  is  what  enabled  the  live 
coal  from  the  altar  to  * '  cleanse ' '  the  ' '  unclean  lips ' ' 
of  the  prophet  (Isa.  vi.). 

Burney. —  ''Atonement  for  seduction  (Num. 
xxv.)." — Page  174. 

"This  atonement  may  on  first  thought  seem  to 
be  essentially  different  from  all  others  mentioned  in 
the  Bible.  But  upon  reflection  we  find  that  while 
it  differs  in  external  form  from  all  others,  it  is  in 
essence — in  the  mental  states — generically  like  all 
others.  Righteous  indignation  is  the  obtrusive 
form  of  feeling  displayed. 

"This,  however,  was  the  natural  outgrowth  of  his 
zeal  for  his  God,  and  jealousy  for  his  honor,  and  this 
again  was  the  natural  and  necessary  psychological 
consequence  of  his  love  to  God  and  love  to  his  people. 

"The  same  love  and  devotion  to  God  and  his 
people  that  prompted  Moses  to  fast  and  pray  forty 
days,  and  to  ask  to  be  blotted  out  of  God's  book, 
if  his  offending  brethren  should  be  destroyed, 
prompted  Phinehas  to  vindicate  the  honor  of  God 
and  avenge  the  insult  offered  to  his  people. 

' '  This  atonement,  we  can  not  fail  to  observe,  was 
made  by  a  priest,  formally  consecrated  to  the  office 
of  mediator.  The  same  act  performed  by  any  one 
not  recognized  as  a  priest,  it  is  presumed,  would 
not  have  been  an  atonement  at  all." — Page  175. 

Comment. — This  is  a  clear  case,  and  one  in- 
volving a  principle  of  great  value  as  to  atonement, 
showing,  as  it  does,  its  connection  with  priesthood, 
but  not  from  Burney's  stand-point. 


ATONEMENTS.  315 

Grievous  sin  had  made  its  appearance  in  the 
camp  of  Israel,  and  God's  anger  had  been  enkin- 
dled against  them.  This  anger  was  primarily 
against  those  guilty  of  the  wrong,  who  merited 
and  received  the  death  threatened  by  the  divine 
law.  The  anger  was  also  against  the  entire  people 
(as  in  the  case  of  Achan),  because  they  tolerated 
the  evil  in  the  camp.  This  must  be  remembered  in 
explaining  the  atonement.  This  anger  could  only 
be  propitiated  by  the  infliction  of  the  penalty — the 
death  of  the  offender.  Hence,  God  said  to  Moses, 

"Take  all  the  heads  of  the  people,  and  hang 
them  up  before  the  Lord,  against  the  sun,  that  the 
fierce  anger  of  the  Lord  may  be  turned  away  from 
Israel.  And  Moses  said  unto  the  judges  of  Israel, 
Slay  ye  every  one  his  men  that  were  joined  unto 
Baal-peor."  —  Num.  xxv.  4,  5. 

If  there  is  any  meaning  in  this,  it  is  that  those 
who,  by  the  allurements  of  the  "daughters  of 
Moab,"  had  been  led  into  idolatry,  should  be  slain. 
This  was  done,  and  twenty-four  thousand  died. 
This  execution  of  the  penalty  brought  grief  and 
mourning,  and  the  people  gathered  before  the  tab- 
ernacle. At  this  critical  moment,  when  waiting 
upon  God  in  penitence,  an  Israelite  brings  a 
Midianitish  woman  in  the  sight  of  all.  This  was  a 
public  outrage.  Before,  they  had  failed  to  punish; 
now,  Phinehas  springs  forward  and  at  once  slays 
the  guilty  couple.  This  zeal  for  the  honor  of  God 
relieves  Israel  of  the  guilt  of  indifference,  and 
God's  anger  is  turned  away. 


316  ATONEMENT. 

First.  It  was  not  "atonement  for  seduction,"  but 
atonement  for  their  indifference  to  the  honor  of 
God,  in  failing  to  carry  out  the  penalty  for  adultery 
and  idolatry — the  last  the  more  heinous  sin. 

Second.  The  guilty  idolaters  were  not  saved  by 
the  zeal  of  Phinehas;  they  had  already  been  slain. 
The  action  of  Phinehas  shows  that  they  were  no 
longer  tolerant  of  wrong,  that  there  was  a  quick- 
ened conscience.  The  prompt  execution  of  the 
law,  as  in  the  case  of  Achan,  appeased  God,  made 
an  atonement  for  Israel.  A  very  pointed  lesson  for 
the  church. 

Third.  Phinehas  acquired  an  "everlasting  priest- 
hood "  by  making  this  atonement.  His  atonement 
was  made  by  the  infliction  of  the  penalty,  Christ's 
by  bearing  it.  Both  thus  acquired  a  priesthood,  for 
the  great  lesson  is  that  priesthood  rests  upon  atone- 
ment made.  Both  Aaron  and  Phinehas  received  an 
everlasting  priesthood,'  but  with  this  difference: 
Aaron  was  called,  Phinehas  acquired  it,  and  was 
afterward  consecrated.  Christ  both  acquired  his 
priesthood  and  was  called  to  it. 

Much  confusion  exists  generally  as  to  priesthood; 
but  mainly  because  of  the  theories  of  theologians  of 
the  Calvinistic  school.  Here  is  the  great  weakness 
of  Dr.  Burney's  theory.  He  practically  accepts  the 
Calvinistic  idea  of  the  work  of  the  priest,  seeking 
only  a  different  application  of  it.  With  such  mis- 
taken views  of  priesthood,  it  is  small  wonder  that 
he  should  reject  substitution. 

(a)  All  through  his  book  Burney  builds  argu- 
ments and  frames  objections  upon  the  assumed  fact 


ATONEMENTS.  317 

that  the  priest  must  kill  the  victim.  For  example, 
one  section  has  this  heading  :  ' '  The  priest  becomes 
an  executioner  before  he  acts  the  part  of  a  me- 
diator." The  whole  section,  italics  and  all,  with 
its  play  upon  "penal  sacrifice,"  etc.,  is  of  no  force 
in  yiew  of  the  fact  that  the  priestly  work  did  not 
begin  until  after  the  victim  was  killed!  Both 
the  non-penal  theory  and  Calvinism  rest  upon  this 
same  misconception  of  the  priest's  work. 

While  the  killing  may  be  done  by  a  priest — as 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement — it  was  generally  done 
by  the  offerer  himself.  The  offerer  was  distinct 
from  the  priest;  and,  while  the  same  person  might 
act  as  both,  the  offering  was  entirely  distinct  from 
the  priestly  work.  If  the  killing  had  been  priestly 
work,  it  could  never  have  been  done  but  by  a  priest ; 
so  that  when  done  by  others  it  enables  us  to  distin- 
guish between  the  offerer  and  the  priest. 

"  If  any  man  of  you  bring -an  offering,  ....  he 
shall  put  his  hand  upon  the  head  of  the  burnt- 
offering;  and  it  shall  be  accepted  for  him  to  make 
atonement  for  him.  And  he  shall  kill  the  bullock 
before  the  Lord;  and  \hzpriests,  Aaron's  sons,  shall 
bring  the  blood." — Lev.  i.  1-6. 

4  The  elders  of  the  congregation  shall  lay  their 
hands  upon  the  head  of  the  bullock  before  the 
Lord;  and  the  bullock  shall  be  killed  before  the 
Lord." — Lev.  iv.  15.  See  also  i.  n,  iii.  2,  iii.  8, 
iii.  12,  iv.  24,  etc. 

These  texts  show  the  law.  The  sinner  or  his 
representative  brings  the  victim  and  presents  it  be- 
fore the  Lord.  It  is  then  "accepted  for  him." 


318  ATONEMENT. 

After  its  acceptance,  not  before,  it  is  slain  by  the 
offerer,  whether  it  be  the  man  or  the  priest  acting 
as  offerer.  It  was  never  slain  by  the  priest  unless 
the  priest  was  the  one  who  offered  it.  After  the 
blood  had  been  shed,  the  work  of  the  priest  began. 
This  fact  is  of  paramount  importance  in  explaining 
the  meaning  of  the  blood,  and  is  utterly  out  of 
harmony  with  the  non-penal  theory. 

No  offering,  however,  could  be  completed  with- 
out a  priest;  because  no  sinner,  as  such,  can  come 
into  the  presence  of  God.  But  it  was  the  blood, 
the  memorial  of  accomplished  sacrifice — telling  of 
the  result  of  that  sacrifice — that  the  priest  pre- 
sented to  God. 

It  is  a  common  thought  that  Christ's  priesthood 
is  linked  with  sin  bearing;  but  it  is  not  the  Bible 
statement. 

(&)  It  will  help  us  to  understand  the  priestly 
work  of  Christ  to  remember  that  it  is  exercised  in 
the  holy  place,  and  began  only  when  he  ascended 
into  heaven. 

"  For  if  he  were  on  earth,  he  should  not  be  a 
priest." — Heb.  viii.  4. 

His  work  on  earth  qualified  him  for  his  priest- 
hood, as  the  whole  argument  in  Hebrews  shows; 
but  it  is  on  the  ground  of  atonement  alone  that  his 
priesthood  is  exercised. 

(c)  Beside  the  work  of  presenting  the  blood  to 
God,  Christ's  work  as  priest  consists  of  intercession. 

Christ's  intercession  is  twofold.  As  priest,  he  in- 
tercedes with  God;  as  advocate,  with  the  Father. 
The  one  is  preventive,  the  other  is  restorative. 


ATONEMENTS.  319 

His  intercession  as  advocate  is  exercised  when  sin 
has  been  committed  and  the  Father's  face  hidden 
from  the  child.  Communion  rests  upon  the  blood, 
confession,  and  intercession.  This  is  presented  in 
John's  Epistle,  and  links  itself  with  the  truth  as  to 
"Feet  Washing." 

His  intercession  as  priest  is  distinct  from  this. 
Its  great  object  is  the  prevention  of  apostasy,  the 
securing  of  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  believer. 
One  is  connected  with  standing,  securing  it  always 
as  divinely  perfect;  the  other  is  connected  with  the 
walk.  The  priesthood  of  Aaron  was  exercised  in 
connection  with  "the  law  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment; "  that  of  Christ  is  "  the  power  of  an  endless 
life." 

' '  But  this  man,  because  he  continueth  ever,  hath 
an  unchangeable  priesthood.  Wherefore  he  is  able 
to  save  to  the  uttermost  (ro  Travre/^c — to  panteles — 
to  the  end  of  time)  that  come  to  God  by  him." — 
Heb.  vii.  24;  Rom.  viii.  34.. 

(d)  Christ's  work  as  priest  is  exercised  in  making 
our  ivorsJiip  acceptable  to  God. 

"  By  (&«,  dia,  through)  him  therefore  let  us  offer 
the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually." — Heb. 
xiii.  15. 

"To  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to 
God  by  Jesus  Christ" 

The  incense  must  give  efficacy  to  the  prayers, 
the  praise,  the  worship  of  God's  people. 

Priesthood  rests  upon  atonement  made. 


CHAPTER    XX. 

BURNEY  ON   THE  OFFERINGS. 

Burney. — "But,  if  I  have  not  greatly  deceived 
myself,  the  facts  connected  with  these  tabernacle 
atonements  are  strongly  adverse  to  the  notion  of 
penality." — Page  227. 

Comment. — The  words  "tabernacle  atonements" 
as  designating  the  offerings,  are  objectionable. 
The  word  ' ( offerings ' '  is  the  one  used  in  the  Bible, 
and  where  we  have  Bible  terms  they  should  always 
be  used.  To  substitute  others,  as  in  this  case,  is 
always  to  obscure  the  truth. 

All  the  offerings  were  not  sacrifices.  The  meat- 
offering is  separate  from  the  rest  in  that  it  did  not 
require  the  death  of  a  victim,  hence  it  is  never 
called  a  sacrifice.  For  the  same  reason  no  atone- 
ment was  made  by  the  meat-offering,  and  no  sins 
were  remitted.  An  offering  was,  therefore,  more 
than  atonement.  Atonement  as  made  by  the  taber- 
nacle offerings  would  have  been  better,  and  left  the 
truth  unimpaired. 

Burney  then  enumerates  the  facts  connected  with 
the  offerings  that  are  opposed  to  the  idea  of  pen- 
alty. His  statements  as  to  how  penalists  explain 
them,  we  pass  by.  They  are  gravely  put  forth  as 
the  views  of  penalists — and  doubtless  he  thinks 


OFFERINGS.  321 

fairly,  for  he  says  "no  penalist  can  object,"  yet  we 
doubt  if  the  most  extreme  substitutionist  of  the 
highest  Calvinistic  order  would  assent  to  them. 
Certainly  we  reject  them,  being  a  mere  caricature 
of  the  views  of  penalists.  If  they  embody  his  be- 
lief as  to  what  substitution  means,  small  wonder  he 
rejects  it !  Who  would  not  ? 

Burney. — u  i.  The  sacrificial  victim  must  be  per- 
fect of  its  kind — without  fault  or  blemish. 

2.  In  sacrifices  for  individuals  the  worshiper  must 
bring  the  victim  to  the  altar. 

3.  The  hands  of  the  worshiper  must  be  laid  upon 
the  head  of  this  victim. 

4.  The  victim  must  be  killed  by  the  officiating 
priest. 

5.  Its  blood  must  be  sprinkled  upon  the  altar, 
which  sanctified  it  and  made  it  acceptable  to  God, 
or  propitiatory  in    the   interest  of  the  worshiper. 
On  the  great  day  of  atonement,  when  the  sacrifice 
was  made  for  all  the  people  indiscriminately,  the 
blood  must  be  sprinkled  by  the  high-priest  upon 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  or  mercy-seat  in  the  holy 
of  holies  (see  Lev.  xvi.)." — Page  227. 

Comment. — Burney 's  facts  are  not  all  facts,  not 
even  a  majority  of  them,  which  is  unfortunate  for 
the  "  non-penal  theory."  Of  the  five — so  called — 
facts  given  above,  only  two,  the  first  and  the  third, 
are  such. 

The  worshiper  brought  the  offering  to  * '  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle ',"  where  it  was  accepted  for  him. 
After  it  was  slain,  the  priest  took  the  blood  and 
such  of  the  body  as  was  burnt,  and  the  priest 
brought  them  to  the  altar.  In  the  sin-offering,  the 

22 


322  ATONEMENT. 

body  never  came  to  the  altar  at  all,  being  burnt 
'  *  outside  the  carnp. ' ' 

Number  four  we  have  already  examined.  As  we 
have  shown,  the  offerer  (whether  worshiper  or 
priest),  not  the  priest,  killed  the  victim.  Burney's 
trouble  is  in  not  discriminating'  between  the  offer- 
ings. His  theory  has  no  use  for  so  many. 

Number  five.  The  blood  was  put  in  different 
places  in  the  different  offerings,  but  never  on  the 
ark.  The  mercy-seat  was  not  the  ark. 

In  the  burnt-offering,  the  blood  was  sprinkled 
"round  about"  the  brazen  altar.  (Lev.  i.  5.)  If  a 
bird  was  offered,  the  blood  was  ' '  wrung  out  by  the 
side  of  the  altar."  (Lev.  i.  15.) 

In  the  peace-offering,  the  blood  was  sprinkled 
"upon  the  altar  round  about."  (Lev.  iii.  2.) 

In  the  trespass-offering,  sprinkled  upon  the  side, 
and  poured,  or  drained  out,  at  the  bottom.  (Lev. 
v.  9.) 

In  the  sin-offering,  the  blood  was  not  put  upon 
the  brazen  altar  at  all.  It  was  sprinkled  before  the 
veil  of  the  sanctuary,  poured  out  at  the  base  of  the 
brazen  altar,  and  placed  upon  the  horns  of  the 
golden  altar.  These  are  all-important  distinctions, 
teaching  great  truths,  and  are  utterly  out  of  harmony 
with  the  non-penal  theory. 

That  God  was  made  favorable  by  the  blood  is  true, 
for  it  is  the  blood  that  makes  atonement;  but  that 
the  blood  was  ever  sanctified,  or  made  acceptable  to 
God,  the  Bible  never  affirms.  This  may  be  essen- 
tial to  the  non-penal  theory,  but  as  the  planks 
of  its  platform  are  all  unsound,  this  one  is  also. 


OFFERINGS.  323 

They  were  forbidden  to  eat  blood.  Why?  "I 
have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make  atone- 
ment for  your  souls."  What  G'od  gives  does  not 
need  to  be  sanctified.  To  be  sanctified  and  to  be 
holy  is  the  same,  the  words  translating  the  same 
Hebrew  and  Greek  words.  The  idea  that  Christ's 
humanity  needed  to  be  sanctified  is  to  deny  his  holi- 
ness— rank  blasphemy.  If  our  readers  will  look 
through  the  type  to  the  antitype,  they  will  see  how 
repulsive  to  the  best  instincts  of  the  Christian  would 
be  the  thought  of  the  blood  being  sanctified,  read 
in  the  light  of  what  it  would  mean.  In  his  mad 
effort  to  destroy  substitution,  Dr.  Burney  will,  if 
his  positions  are  logically  carried  out  to  their  ulti- 
mate analysis,  destroy  the  glory  of  the  person  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  himself. 

The  blood  placed  on  the  mercy-seat  by  the  high- 
priest,  was  for  the  eye  of  God — the  memorial  of  a 
finished  sacrifice.  But  when  the  blood  was  placed 
upon  the  altar,  it  was  for  the  eye  of  man,  for  God 
says,  "I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar." 
How  could  the  blood  have  been  on  the  altar — which 
even  the  non-penal  theory  makes  a  representation 
of  Christ's  divinity — if  not  as  God's  gift?  It  turns 
our  eyes  to  a  divine  Savior,  dying  for  us,  and  tells 
that  u  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son."  Our  readers  can  readily  see  which 
exegesis  is  most  in  harmony  with  the  facts. 

Burney 's  facts  being  so  shaky,  we  may  believe 
that  his  whole  house  is  unsafe;  and  it  must  be  con- 
demned as  uninhabitable  by  all  competent  archi- 
tects. 


324  ATONEMENT. 

As  to  the  two  facts  that  are  such,  Burney  gives 
the  following  reasons  why  they  are  not  in  harmony 
with  substitution. 

Burney. — "It  makes  the  sacrificial  kid  represent 
two  contradictory  things  at  the  same  time,  viz. : 
the  holiness  and  innocence  of  Christ,  and  the  un- 
holiness  and  guilt  of  the  sinful  worshiper."-— Page 
229. 

Comment. — The  being  * ( without  blemish  ' '  is  the 
necessary  qualification  for  its  being  "accepted  for 
him."  The  idea  that  the  guilt  ever  becomes 
Christ's  is  Burney's,  not  ours.  No  substitutionist 
so  believes.  Dr.  Burney  can  not  see  this,  because  of 
his  views  of  the  relation  of  sin  and  penalty.  Re- 
jecting these  as  in  conflict  with  all  the  facts,  being 
simply  a  "fiction"  of  a  theologian,  we  have  no 
such  difficulty. 

Burney. — "If  the  moral  government  is  suffi- 
ciently pliable  to  allow  a  kid,  incapable  of  guilt  in  any 
sense,  to  bear  the  sin  of  the  offerer  and  to  die  in  his 
stead,  then  we  have  a  penal  death  without  sin,  and 
why  might  we  not  have  sin  without  a  penal  death  ? 
The  penalist,  I  think,  can  not  answer." — Page  230. 

Comment.- — i.  This  means,  if  God's  government 
admits  of  substitution.  That,  of  course,  is  for 
God  himself  to  say,  and  is  the  issue.  What  follows 
may  be  understood  in  several  ways. 

2.  Dr.  Burney  holds  that  criminality  and  penalty 
have  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect;  if  his  argu- 
ment is  from  that  stand-point,  his  "if"  means 
nothing,  he  is  simply  playing  with  his  readers. 


OFFERINGS.  325 

3.  If  he  means  that  a  kid  is  u  incapable  of  guilt 
in    any   sense,"   and,    therefore,    on    the    substitu- 
tionist's  own  theory  the  death  has  no  connection 
with  the  sin,  we  say  that  he  fails  to  understand  the 
position   of   the  substitutionist.     Kent,    the   great 
legal  authority,  says,  ua  ship  incurs  guilt  by  the 
violation  of  a  blockade."     This  shows  a  recognized 
meaning  of  the  word  "guilt" — that  is,  liability  to 
penalty — which  Dr.   Burney  constantly  overlooks. 
In  this  sense  of  the  word,  which    is   perhaps    its 
primary  meaning,  when  the  kid  is  "  accepted  for 
him,"  it  becomes  guilty — liable  to  the  death  pen- 
alty— and  at  once  it  is  slain.     This  is  only  a  type, 
but   it   shows   that   Burney's   statement  that  it  is 
"incapable  of  guilt  in  any  sense,"  is  not  true. 

4.  Substitution  being  true,  we  have  a  penal  death 
without  criminality,  and  in  the  same  sense  crimi- 
nality without  a  penal  death.     If  the  criminality  is 
ours,  and  the  suffering  is  Christ's,  both  must  be 
true,  as  on  no  other  ground  is  substitution  possible. 
As  the  criminality  does  not  become  Christ's,  if  he 
died  for  us  substitutionally,  his  death  must  have 
been  "  a  penal  death  without  sin."     On  the  other 
hand,  if  we  are  saved  at  all,  in  any  sense,  from  the 
"second  death,"  which  is  after  the  judgment,  we 
have   "sin   without   a   penal    death."     If    Burney 
means  more  than  this,  his  meaning  is  not  plain. 
He  runs  "  amuck  "  with  his  penalty  and  sin  causally 
connected. 

Burney. — "The  generic  import  of  the  rite  as 
used  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  benedic- 
tion." 


326  ATONEMENT. 

"  Imposition  of  hands  and  lifting  up  of  hands  in 
prayer  seem  to  be  substantially  the  same  thing,  or 
are  expressive  of  the  same  mental  states." — Page 
241. 

Comment. — i.  To  this  last  we  dissent,  believing 
them  to  be  "  substantially  ' '  different,  as  any  good 
concordance  will  show. 

2.  Laying  on  of  hands  was  the  sign  of  identity, 
and  when  a  benediction  was  pronounced,  as  in  the 
case  of  Jacob,  it  showed  symbolically  that  the  one 
on  whose  head  the  hands  were  laid  was  the  one 
identified  with  the  blessing.  Thus  it  was  possible 
to  rob  Bsau  of  his  blessing.  That  it  is  in  conflict 
with  substitution  is  so  wild  a  statement  that  we 
can  say  the  very  opposite  is  true,  and  no  substitu- 
tion is  possible  without  it.  (See  Spirit  Baptism.) 

Dr.  Burney  next  considers  the  scape-goat.  As 
we  have  given  a  full  exposition  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment, and  do  not  hold  the  theory  of  Dr.  Hodge,  we 
pass  by  what  he  says  in  review  of  Hodge.  We 
confine  ourselves  to  an  examination  of  Burney 's 
own  exposition. 

Burney. — "  Two  things  are  indispensable  to  sal- 
vation, viz. :  first,  atonement  in  the  sense  of  propi- 
tiation; and  secondly,  atonement  in  the  sense  of 
reconciliation.  The  first  pertains  exclusively  to 
God;  the  second  to  men.  God  is  never  reconciled, 
but  is  propitiated.  Men  are  never  propitiated,  but 
are  reconciled." — Page  253. 

Comment. — i.  As  we  have  repeatedly  shown, 
atonement  and  propitiation  is  the  same  thing  in  the 
Bible.  "Atonement  in  the  sense  of  reconciliation," 


OFFERINGS.  327 

would  be  the  same  as  propitiation  in  the  sense  of 
reconciliation. 

2.  Burney  applies  every  passage  which  speaks  of 
reconciliation,  to  the  sinner  as  being  reconciled  to 
God.  Let  us  see : 

"And  all  things  are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled 
us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath  given  to  us 
the  ministry  of  reconciliation,  to  wit:  that  God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not 
imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them;  and  hath  com- 
mitted unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation. 

u  Now,  then,  we  are  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as 
though  God  did  beseech  by  us,  we  pray  in  Christ's 
stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God." — 2  Cor.  v.  18-20. 

That  it  is  God,  and  not  the  sinner,  who  is  here 
said  to  be  reconciled,  the  following  considerations 
will  show: 

First.  The  reconciliation  is  as  universal  as  propi- 
tiation— "the  world."  When  was  this  done? 
When  Christ  was  fulfilling  his  mission.  Not  God 
is  in  Christ,  but  "  was  ;"  showing  that  this  recon- 
ciliation for  the  world  was  made  at  the  cross.  In 
exactly  the  same  sense  in  which  Christ  is  a  propitia- 
tion for  all,  he  reconciles  all  to  God.  We  have 
fully  shown  this  general  view  of  the  cross,  which 
shows  why  Paul  speaks  of  the  reconciliation  object- 
ively rather  than  subjectively. 

Secondly.  The  manner  in  which  it  is  done.  Cer- 
tainly sinners  are  not  reconciled  to  God  by  "not 
imputing  their  trespasses  to  them.' '  But  God  recon- 
ciles the  world  to  himself  "in  that  way.  He  can  never 


328  ATONEMENT. 

reconcile  them  u  to  himself,"  never  deal  with  them 
in  grace,  never  save,  so  long  as  sin  stands  between 
them  and  himself. 

Third.  The  ministry  committed  is  a  "word  of 
reconciliation,''  it  is  the  message  of  "good-will  "  to 
men.  God  no  longer  angry.  All  barriers  removed 
— the  word  of  reconciliation. 

Fourth.  While  God  has  reconciled  the  world  unto 
himself,  the  sinner  needs  to  be  reconciled  unto  God. 
One  tells  of  what  has  been  done,  the  other  of  what 
has  to  be.  The  exhortation  to  be  reconciled  is  un- 
meaning if  the  world  has  been  reconciled  to  God. 
This  it  does  not  teach.  "Reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself,"  is  not  synonymous  with  the  world 
being  reconciled  to  God. 

3.  There  is  no  instance  in  the  Bible  where  the 
word  is  applied  to  men,  where  it  means  any  thing 
else  than  propitiation.  Jacob  tried  to  "appease"  — 
propitiate — Esau  by  the  present.  In  the  same  way 
God  is  appeased — propitiated — by  the  work  of  his 
Son.  The  atonement  discussed  in  these  pages, 
is  made  to  God,  not  to  men.  Nowhere  can  we  find 
an  illustration  of  an  atonement  with  the  double- 
barrelled  action  that  Burney  seems  to  give  it,  one 
aimed  at  God — propitiating;  the  other  at  men — 
reconciling. 

Biirney. — "Mark  this  fact,  that  it  was  not  the 
sacrificial  goat,  but  the  scape-goat  that  bore,  or  car- 
ried away  sin" — Page  254. 

Comment. — He  repeats  it  so  often  that  it  is  evi- 
dent he  believes  it  has  tremendous  force  against 


OFFERINGS.  329 

substitution.  But  we  emphasize  it  as  strongly  as 
Dr.  Burney  does.  It  is  the  ground  of  our  medium 
theory.  But  it  is  fatal  to  Burney 's  non-penal 
theory,  as  we  will  show  when  we  come  to  examine 
him  upon  the  atonement  of  Christ. 

Burney. — "It  is  the  living  Christ,  not  the  dead, 
that  justifies,  that  saves.  Hundreds  of  texts  might 
be  cited  proving  this  fact.  It  is  sufficient  to  refer 
to  the  following:  Rom.  iii.  25;  iv.  35;  2  Cor.  v.  17, 
18;  Isa.  xliii.  25;  Gal.  vi.  14. 

On  the  contrary,  there  are  no  texts  that  refer 
our  salvation  directly  to  what  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice 
for  sin,  did  or  suffered." — Page  255. 

Comment. — i.  No  one  disputes  that  it  is  the  liv- 
ing Christ  who  saves.  As  Christ  is  alive  in  heaven, 
if  he  saves  any  one,  they  must  be  saved  by  a  living 
Christ.  But  while  this  is  what  Dr.  Burney  says,  this 
is  not  what  he  means ;  for  farther  on  he  says,  '  'Who 
justifies  and  saves  by  imparting  his  own  nature  to 
those  united  to  him  by  faith."  In  the  light  of  this, 
it  seems  he  is  talking  of  how  Christ  saves,  not 
who.  In  this  he  has  shifted  the  ground  somewhat. 

2.  That  no  text  refers  our  salvation  to  what  Christ 
did  or  suffered,  is  the  very  opposite  of  the  truth. 
Not  to  burden  the  reader  with  texts,  the  following 
are  sufficient  to  refute  this  : 

"  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions." — 
Isa.  liii.  5. 

"Justified  by  his  blood." — Rom.  v.  9. 
"Reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son."— 
Rom.  v.  10. 


330  ATONEMENT. 

3.  Equally  with  Burney,  we  believe  in  the  work 
of  a  living  Christ  imparting  life  to  the  believer; 
but  unlike  him,  we  believe  the  death  as  essential  as 
the  resurrection. 

Burney. — "  'When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul 
(life)  an  offering  for  sin.'  His  death  was  sacrificial 
and  therefore  not  penal,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  a  penal 
sacrifice  is  a  contradiction  in  the  adjective." — 
Page  261. 

1  1A  penal  sacrifice  ?  A  monstrosity  I  venture  to 
say  the  world  never  saw,  and  never  will ;  because  it 
is  a  contradiction  in  the  adjective,  and  a  thing 
in  itself  impossible. 

All  sacrifices  are  acts  of  religious  worship.  No 
penalties  are  or  can  be  voluntary,  as  has  been 
shown.  Sacrifice  is  an  act  expressive  of  obedi- 
ence, reverence,  love  to  God.  Penalty  is  an  ex- 
pression of  God's  displeasure  against  the  disobe- 
dient. A  penal  sacrifice!!  Think  of  it,  and  explain 
it,  if  you  can.  Shall  we  say  it  is  an  act  of  religious 
worship,  which  has  the  effect  of  a  penalty  ?  Then, 
the  less  worship,  the  less  penalty.  Or,  shall  we  say 
it  is  a  penalty  which  has  the  effect  of  religious  wor- 
ship ?  Then  Satan  and  his  hosts  fare  about  as  well 
as  the  worshiping  angels." — Page  234. 

Comment. — i.  What  a  flight  of  fancy  !  !  What 
does  Burney  mean  here  by  worship  ?  If  he  means 
what  Jesus  did  when  he  speaks  of  the  ' '  true  wor- 
shipers," who  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
then  we  deny  that  sacrifice  was  an  act  of  worship. 
If  he  means  simply  that  it  was  part  of  the  religious 
ceremonies  of  the  Jews,  we  agree. 

2.  His  definition  of  sacrifice — "an  act  express- 
ive of  obedience,  reverence,  love  to  God" — can  not 


OFFERINGS.  331 

be  received.  No  dictionary  so  defines  it;  it  can  not 
be  found  in  the  words  used.  Take  for  example  the 
one  in  Isaiah,  which  Burney  gives:  u  Thy  sin- 
offering"  translates  the  Hebrew  word  D^K  (asham). 
This  word  means,  primarily,  " fault,  blame,  g^tilt, 
which  one  contracts."  And  from  this  a  sacrifice 
for  fault  or  guilt — a  tresfiass-offeriiij*.  It  is  the 
same  word  in  the  Hebrew  that  is  translated  "  sin  " 
and  "  sin-offering. "  How  can  Burney  get  his  defi- 
nition from  this,  especially  when  we  remember  that 
the  trespass-offering,  like  the  sin-offering,  was  not 
a  "sweet  savor."  Burney's  definition  is  a  pure 
assumption,  for  which  he  will  never  give  any  proof. 

3.  Burney  fails  to  apprehend  the  true  idea  of  a 
worshiper,  and  the  true  place  of  worship. 

Sacrifice  was  the  basis  of  all  acceptable  worship. 
The  man  must  first  be  forgiven  before  he  becomes 
a  worshiper.  How  can  we  approach  God  accept- 
ably, how  can  we  enter  the  holiest  as  worshipers, 
unless  the  question  of  sin  has  been  settled  at  the 
altar,  and  our  feet  have  been  washed  at  the  laver  ? 
A  strange  medley,  a  very  babel  of  confusion, 
would  be  the  worship  of  Christendom  on  any  such 
foundation.  Alas,  we  have  too  much  of  babel,  and 
not  enough  of  Christ,  already  !  Spiritual  worship 
can  never  be  rendered  where  the  conscience  has  not 
been  perfectly  cleansed  by  the  blood,  and  com- 
munion enjoyed  in  fullness  by  the  soul.  Sacrifice 
then,  not  as  an  act  of  worship,  but  as  the  true  basis 
of  worship.  Without  shedding  of  blood  no  remis- 
sion, and  without  remission  no  true  worship. 

The  whole  system  of  Mosaic  sacrifices  is,  how- 


332  ATONEMENT. 

ever,  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  non-penal 
theory.  No  explanation,  when  applied  to  the  anti- 
type, will  give  us  any  rational  conception  of 
Christ's  work. 

Suppose  we  take  Dr.  Burney's  own  explanation, 
that  it  is  the  offering  up  of  the  life — the  consecra- 
tion of  the  life — to  God.  Then,  logically,  the  sac- 
rifice can  only  represent  the  sinner,  which  is  in 
opposition  to  the  Bible,  that  always  represents 
Christ  as  the  victim.  If  it  represents  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  life  of  the  worshiper,  how  can  this  be 
done  by  the  death  of  Christ,  if  not  vicariously? 

It  is  here  that  we  find  confusion  in  Dr.  Burney's 
book.  Making  the  same  thing  to  represent  the 
death  of  Christ  and  the  offering  of  the  life  of  the 
offerer.  Dr.  Burney  finds  it  impossible  to  harmo- 
nize them,  and  so  leaves  his  non-penal  theory,  as 
we  shall  find,  in  the  fog. 

The  non-penal  theory  will  never  give  a  clear-cut 
explanation  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices,  that  will  be 
logical,  self-consistent,  and  understood. 

Dr.  Burney's  idea  that  God  was  worshiped  by  the 
countless  sacrifices  of  Judaism,  reduces  the  religion 
of  the  Jews  to  the  level  of  heathenism.  Skeptics 
speak  of  the  savage  butchery  of  these  sacrifices  as 
an  objection  to  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Dr.  Burney  enters  a  plea  of  guilty  when  he  makes 
this  wholesale  slaughter  an  act  of  worship,  ' '  ex- 
pressive of  obedience,  reverence,  and  love  to  God." 
He  thus  places  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  on  ground  that 
is  indefensible  by  reason,  because  repugnant  to  the 
best  instincts  of  the  race. 


CHAPTER   XXL 

BURNEY   ON   THE   ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 

Having  followed  Dr.  Burney  in  his  examination 
of  the  types  and  found  him  so  far  at  fault,  it  neces- 
sarily follows  that  his  theory,  in  its  application  to 
the  great  antitype,  will  be  also. 

Burney. — "Section  I. — The  obedience  of  Christ 
—in  what  sense  he  obeyed  the  law." — -Page  194. 

Comment. — His  theory  reduces  the  obedience  of 
Christ  entirely  to  law-keeping.  "Made  under  the 
law,"  he  kept  it  in  every  jot  and  tittle,  and  this  is 
the  sum  of  what  is  meant  by  Christ's  obedience, 
according  to  Burney.  If  this  be  true,  we  can  never 
have  a  perfect  standing  until  our  life  is  perfect;  or 
else  Christ's  law-keeping  must  be  imputed  to  us  for 
righteousness.  Can  Dr.  Burney  ever  reconcile  his 
theory  with  the  perfect  standing  every  believer  has 
in  Christ  according  to  the  Bible?  u  Ye  are  clean 
every  whit"  is  never  true  from  Burney 's  stand- 
point. 

Burney. — "The  law  under  which  he  was  born 
is  the  great  moral  law,  which  is  conservative  of  the 
harmony  and  happiness  of  the  moral  world." — 
Page  194. 

Comment. — i.  Then  his  obedience  that  led  him 
to  come  from  heaven  was  law  keeping  also. 


334  ATONEMENT. 

2.   The  law  only  required  love  to  a  neighbor. 

"It  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor, and  hate  thine  enemy.  But  I  say  unto  you, 
love  your  enemies." 

This  went  beyond  the  requirement  of  law.  Christ 
proclaimed  a  grander  law  of  love.  This  must  not 
be  forgotten.  We  are  apt  to  judge  the  morals  of 
the  Jew — the  imprecations  of  the  Psalms,  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  treated  their  enemies,  and  the 
many  similar  facts  in  their  history — by  the  standard 
of  Christian  ethics.  This  goes  far  beyond  the  law 
as  a  rule  of  action. 

Burney—"  Paul  says  (Phil.  ii.  8) :  *  Christ  being 
found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself  and 
became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross.' 

"This  teaches  that  Christ's  death  was  an  act  of 
obedience  to  the  law — the  *  one  act  of  righteous- 
ness (by  which)  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men ' 
(Rom.  v.  1 8),  or  the  one  act  of  obedience  by  which 
he  becomes  the  Redeemer  of  them  that  are  under 
the  law,  not  by  fulfilling  the  law  in  their  stead,  but 
by  making  those  that  trust  in  him  partakers  of  his 
own  personal  obedience,  or  righteousness."  —Page 
194. 

Comment. — i.  Phil.  ii.  8,  teaches  that  Christ's 
death  was  an  act  of  obedience,  but  it  does  not 
teach  that  it  was  "obedience  to  the  law"  This 
last  is  Burney's  addition  to  the  Bible.  He  came  to 
do  the  Father's  will,  and  his  death  was  obedience 
to  that  will,  but  not  to  the  law. 

2.  Christ's  obedience  was  his  death,  yet  Dr.  Burney 
says  we  are  made  "  partakers  of  his  own  personal 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  335 

obedience,"  which  is  a  sheer  impossibility.  How 
can  we  be  made  partakers  of  the  personal  obe- 
dience of  another? 

3.  He  makes  Christ's  death  "the  one  act  of  obe- 
dience," "the  one  act  of  righteousness."  In  the 
last  he  follows  the  New  Translation.  The  old  reads, 
"by  the  righteousness  of  one."  We  have  exam- 
ined some  six  translations  besides,  and  the  revised 
is  the  only  one  that  so  renders  it.  The  Greek  reads, 


"Even  so  by  one  righteousness  toward  all  men, 
for  justification  of  life."  Or,  "by  righteousness  of 
one." 

The  same  word  is  translated  "justification"  in 
verse  16  of  the  Revised  Version,  and  why  it  is  ren- 
dered '  '  one  act  of  righteousness  '  '  here,  we  can  not 
understand,  nor  do  we  believe  it  can  be  maintained. 

The  verb  datfuoHtes  expresses  the  act  of  justifying 
or  making  righteous.  The  noun  drxfucopa,  the  state 
of  righteousness  or  justification  that  results  from 
this  act.  How  they  can  get  the  act  out  of  the  state 
we  can  not  see. 

But  even  if  we  accept  the  new  translation,  it 
must  be  in  a  sense  which  excludes  Burney's  "act 
of  obedience"  That  most  certainly  d^auo^a  never 
can  be. 

Burney.  —  "I  answer,  it  was  preceptive  obedience 
—  the  doing  purposely,  and  even  joyfully  (Heb.  xii. 
2),  just  what  the  law  required  him  to  do."  —  Page 
196. 


336  ATONEMENT. 

Comment. — A  precept  is  a  command  intended  as 
a  rule  of  action.  An  act  of  obedience  (if  precept- 
ive) implies  that  the  specific  thing  done  was  com- 
manded to  be  done.  But  Christ's  death  was  never 
commanded  by  the  law. 

Burney. — "If  Moses,  under  a  higher  degree  of 
mental  agony,  had  died  on  this  occasion  [when  he 
said,  Blot  me  out  of  thy  book],  he  would  have  died 
of  love,  or  obedience;  from  loving  God  and  his 
neighbor  as  himself — not  in  their  stead,  but  on 
their  account. 

u  We  know  that  the  human  organism  is  capable 
of  only  a  limited  amount  of  mental  disturbance. 
Excessive  joy  and  excessive  grief  often  induce 
death.  Christ's  sinlessness  probably  rendered  him 
pre-eminently  capable  of  love  or  obedience  unto 
death  from  mental  suffering  .  .  .  This  liability 
to  death,  he,  of  course,  had  power  to  overcome. 
But  this  was  not  his  purpose.  He  came  to  lay 
down  his  life  for  man — to  give  it  for  men.  This 
life  was  all  he  had  to  give,  all  he  could  give. 
This  obedience  unto  death  was  just  what  the  ;aw 
required — not  &jot  more  nor  less." — Page  196. 

Comment. — i.  This  is  a  strange  philosophy.  That 
loving  ever  directly  killed  any  one  is  an  absurdity. 
As  the  love  that  is  commanded  by  law  requires,  in 
order  to  obedience,  an  act  of  the  will,  it  follows 
that  a  man  may  put  an  end  to  his  own  life  by  an 
act  of  will  alone,  if  Burney 's  philosophy  is  true. 

A  sudden  shock  when  the  constitution  is  weak, 
or  the  heart  is  diseased,  may  cause  death,  or  a  per- 
son may  pine  away  from  unrequited  love,  but  no 
one  was  ever  killed  by  loving.  If  Dr.  Burney  means 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  337 

that  his  love  led  him  to  endure  great  mental  agony 
or  suffering,  and  this  suffering  resulted  in  his  death, 
that  is  another  thing.  If  there  was  no  direct 
necessity  for  this  agony  or  suffering,  as  when  a 
man  injures  himself  in  saving  the  life  of  another, 
then  the  law  of  love  can  not  require  it.  The  suffer- 
ing can  never  be  required  unless  a  direct  benefit 
comes  from  the  suffering  itself. 

A  mother  grieves  over  the  waywardness  of  her 
son,  and  this  grief  leads  to  her  death.  But  is  it  in 
fulfillment  of  the  law  of  love  that  she  dies?  By  no 
means.  I^ove  to  God  implies  trust  and  submission, 
and  where  this  is  found  there  will  never  be  such 
excessive  grief.  Such  grief  is  itself  a  violation  of 
the  law  of  love.  Such  love  is  degraded  by  selfish- 
ness; and  such  love  God  never  asks. 

2.  Dr.  Burney  holds  that  death  is  the  result  of 
the  frailty  of  the  "human  organism,"  but  clearly 
holds  that  there  was  no  such  necessary  frailty  in 
Christ.  He  could  only  die  if  he  so  willed.  Passive 
obedience  Burney  regards  as  utterly  "inconceiv- 
able; "  hence  he  says,  "no  act  of  his  ministry  was 
more  purely  voluntary  than  was  his  death,  which 
was  in  the  highest  sense  an  act  of  obedience — 
not  passive,  but  active."  There  can  be  no  mis- 
take here.  L,ove  itself  would  never  have  destroyed 
Christ;  his  death  had  to  be  his  own  voluntary 
act. 

A  voluntary  death  never  fulfills  any  law,  unless 

there  is  a  distinct  good  to  be  accomplished  by  that 

death.     If  that  death  was  essential  to  the  salvation 

of  men,  love  would  lead  him  to  endure  that  death. 

23 


338  ATONEMENT. 

If  it  was  not  essential,  then,  if  voluntary,  it  was 
simply  suicide. 

To  say  that  it  was  necessary,  that  he  might  fulfill 
the  law  of  love,  and  then  to  say  that  the  law  of 
love  required  it  because  it  was  necessary,  is  to 
reason  in  a  circle.  A  need  for  that  death  must  be 
shown  apart  from  the  law  of  love,  before  the  law 
could  ever  demand  that  Christ  should  die.  This 
need  the  non-penal  theory  can  not  show. 

Burney. — u  Does  the  law  require  such  obedience 
of  all  its  subjects  ?  I  answer,  the  law  requires  us 
to  love  God  with  all  our  powers,  and  our  neighbor 
as  ourselves,  but  it  does  not  require  useless  sacri- 
fices."— Page  197. 

Comment. — This  evades  the  issue.  Does  the  law 
.require  me  to  love  until  that  love  shall  be  so  great 
as  to  deprive  of  life  ?  If  the  law  does  not  require 
.this  of  all,  it  does  not  require  it  of  Christ.  A  use- 
less sacrifice  is  no  more  demanded  of  Christ  than  of 
any  one  else;  and  his  death  would  be  useless  unless 
a  distinct  need  can  be  shown  for  it,  and  that  need  is 
not  shown  by  saying  the  law  of  love  demands  it. 

Burney. — "If  my  soul  could  be  saved  only  by 
the  sacrifice  of  my  animal  life,  fidelity  to  God,  and 
to  myself  as  well,  would  require  the  sacrifice. 

"But  equal  love  to  my  neighbor,  would,  under 
the  same  circumstances,  require  me  to  make  the 
same  sacrifice  for  him  as  for  myself.  But  mere 
human  sacrifices  can  not  sanctify,  nor  save  sinners. 
Hence,  mere  men  are  not  required  to  offer  them- 
selves in  sacrifice  in  such  a  manner  and  for  such  a 
purpose." — Page  198. 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  339 

Comment. — i.  That  a  man  should  sacrifice  his 
life  to  save  his  soul,  if  necessary,  is  contradictory. 
We  can  not  conceive  of  any  case  where  suicide 
would  be  right. 

2.  As  we  can  not  make  such  a  sacrifice  for  our- 
selves, it  is  equally  impossible  for  us  to  make  such  a 
sacrifice  for  our  neighbors.  What  good  could  one 
man's  suicide  do  another?  None,  but  positive 
harm.  To  call  such  suicide  a  sacrifice  is  absurd. 
We  call  special  attention  to  this  because  it  is  the 
great  effort  to  explain  that  which  is  fatal  to  the 
non-penal  theory,  namely,  the  utter  impossibility 
of  giving  a  rational  explanation  of  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ. 

Bnrnev. — "  But  Christ  was  not  a  mere  man,  but 
the  God-man.  This  union  of  the  human  with  the 
divine  rendered  him  capable  of  redeeming  human- 
ity by  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  This  the  law 
required  him  to  do,  just  as  it  would  require  me  to 
sacrifice  my  body  for  the  sake  of  my  soul,  if  it 
could  be  saved  in  no  other  way. " — Page  198. 

Comment. — As  Dr.  Burney  admits,  the  volun- 
tary death  of  a  mere  man  would  avail  nothing, 
hence,  would  be  simply  suicide.  But  he  argues  that 
the  death  of  Christ  would  avail,  because  he  is  the 
God-man.  And  because  his  death  would  ' c  sanctify 
and  save,"  the  law  of  love  demands  it  We  ask, 
Was  this  obedience  rendered  by  him  as  man  or  as 
God?  If  he  says  as  God,  then  it  would  be  God 
loving  himself.  If  as  man,  Burney  has  shown 
that  man's  voluntary  death  would  be  of  no  avail. 

As  Dr.  Burney  repudiates  any  theandric  acts,  and 


340  ATONEMENT. 

denies  the  real  theandric  character  of  Christ,  how 
will  he  make  Christ's  death  differ  from  that  of  a 
mere  man  ?  " 

The  truth  is  that  the  non-penal  theory,  while 
professing  to  avoid  the  weak  places  of  Calviiiistic 
substitution,  is  open  to  the  same  objections  itself, 
while  bristling  with  absurdities  that  Calvinism  was 
never  charged  with.  It  is  but  another  illustration 
of  the  inconsistencies  of  error.  As  Dr.  Burney 
denies  that  Christ  did  any  thing  not  purely  human 
or  divine,  what  he  here  says  is  unmeaning. 

Burney. — "  Paul  asserts  this  obligation  of  Christ 
to  humanity  when  he  says  (Gal.  iv.  4) :  '  God  sent 
forth  his  Son,  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the 
law,  to  redeem  them  who  were  under  the  law.' 

"  Christ  himself  affirms  it  when  he  says,  after  his 
resurrection  (Luke  xxiv.  26) : 

"  ' 'Ought  not  Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things, 
and  to  enter  into  his  glory,'  and  (verse  46),  'Thus 
it  is  written  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day.'  ' 

Comment. — This  is  Burney's  proof  that  Christ's 
death  was  required  by  the  law,  the  words  in  italics, 
he  thinks,  indicating  this  obligation. 

If  our  readers  will  examine  Luke,  they  will  find 
that  the  argument  there  is  that  this  obligation  came 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  predicted.  Having  shown 
that  it  was  taught  in  the  Bible  that  Christ  should 
die,  he  asks  them,  "  Ought  not,"  etc.  Not  one 
word  about  the  law. 

Burney. — "  i.  But  you  ask,  how  comes  this  lov- 
ing obedience  unto  death  to  be  an  all-sufficient 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  341 

sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  brotherhood  of 
h  11  inanity  ? 

u  I  answer,  not  because  it  was  the  act  of  a  mere 
man,  offering  his  blood  or  life  in  behalf  of  others; 
nor  because  it  was  the  act  of  a  divinely-appointed 
priest,  commissioned  by  God  as  was  Aaron,  but  be- 
cause it  was  the  act  of  the  God-man,  or  God  in 
man,  and  the  grand  High-priest — a  priest  conse- 
crated forever  because  a  priest  in  his  own  right, 
offering  his  own  blood  or  human  life  as  a  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  the  world,  that  is  to  say,  the  divine 
in  Christ  offering  the  human,  or  human  life  in 
Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  humanity.  As 
God  or  divine  he  was  holy,  and  the  union  or  con- 
tact of  the  human  with  the  divine  sanctified,  made 
holy  the  human,  and  rendered  it  acceptable  to  the 
divine,  just  as  the  sanctified  altar,  which  sanctifies 
every  thing  that  touches  it,  renders  acceptable  the 
sacrifices  placed  upon  it.  (i  Cor.  vii.  14.) 

u  2.  Now,  this  sanctified  human  nature  is  offered 
as  a  sacrifice  for  all  unsanctified  humanity,  and  be- 
cause an  accepted  sacrifice  sanctifies  that  for  which 
it  is  offered  (Heb.  ix.  13;  Rom.  xii.  i);  all  humanity 
is  sanctified,  or  consecrated  to  God,  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  render  their  approach  to  God  possible." — 
Page  200. 

Comment. — We  quote  this  and  what  follows  in 
full,  because  it  is  the  non-penal  theory,  and  we  want 
it  fairly  before  our  readers. 

i.  Like  Bushnell,  he  makes  the  blood  a  symbol 
of  life.  This,  we  have  abundantly  shown,  is  not  the 
Bible  thought.  Burney,  however,  makes  a  different 
application  of  the  symbol.  Bushnell  made  it  a 
symbol  of  the  worshiper  offering  his  own  life,  or 
consecrating  that  life  to  God.  Burney  makes  it  the 


342  ATONEMENT. 

offering  of  Christ's  human  life  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  the  world,  and  that  is  substitution,  after  all. 
If  he  offered  that  life  for  himself,  it  would  not  be; 
but  if  it  was  offered  for  others,  it  certainly  was. 
God's  anger  is  turned  away  by  the  offering  of 
Christ's  life  as  a  sacrifice.  Then,  as  the  sacrifice 
was  not  for  himself,  it  was  vicarious. 

But  we  will  examine  Burney  more  at  length. 

Burney. — "For  the  sake  of  greater  distinctness, 
I  recapitulate  as  follows  : 

u  i.  Christ  as  divine  is  truly  holy,  not  by  divine 
appointment,  as  was  Moses,  nor  by  formal  consecra- 
tion, as  was  Aaron,  the  altar,  etc.,  but  because  he  is 
God,  who  is  holy  of  himself. 

"  2.  Christ  is  as  truly  human  as  he  is  divine,  and 
his  humanity  is  sanctified  by  its  contact  or  union 
with  the  divine;  and  precisely  in  this  way  we  have 
the  divine  holiness  transmitted  from  God  to  Christ's 
human  nature,  and,  hence,  into  the  sphere  of  human- 
ity."— Page  201. 

Comment. — I.  The  Doctor  simply  means  in  his 
first  proposition  that  Christ,  being  God,  is  holy. 
What  he  says  about  Moses  and  Aaron  is  foreign  to 
the  argument,  and  confuses  it,  because  they  were 
only  holy  in  the  ritual  sense  of  ' '  set  apart. ' ' 

2.  As  to  the  essential  fact  that  because  Christ 
was  divine  his  humanity  was  holy,  we  are  fully  in 
accord  with  Burney.  We  object,  however,,  to  the 
statement  that  his  humanity  was  sanctified  and  so 
rendered  acceptable  to  God.  The  Bible  does  not 
teach  this.  The  miraculous  conception  insured  the 
holiness  of  his  humanity,  which  never  needed  to 
be  sanctified,  and  as  holy,  could  not  be. 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  343 

Burney. — "3.  As  a  priest  in  his  own  right,  he  is 
adequate  to  consecrate  by  sacrificial  offerings  in  a 
higher  sense  than  Aaron  or  any  other  mere  human 
priest.  Aaron,  by  sacrifice,  could  impart  to  altars, 
men,  etc.,  only  a  ritual  and  symbolical  holiness  or 
sanctification.  But  Christ,  because  he  was  a  priest 
in  his  own  right,  could,  by  sacrifice  of  his  humanity, 
impart  a  real  holiness  and  his  own  spiritual  life  to 
those  whom  he  sanctifies.  (Heb.  xii.  10;  2  Peter 
i.  4.)" — Page  202. 

Comment. — i.  The  altar,  laver,  the  holy  vessels, 
and  the  tabernacle,  were  all  sanctified — that  is,  con- 
secrated or  set  apart  to  the  service  of  God.  But 
this  was  done  by  Moses  and  not  by  Aaron,  and  done 
by  the  blood  and  the  oil.  This  shows  confusion  as 
to  the  distinction  between  a  prophet  and  a  priest. 
Moses  was  a  prophet,  not  a  priest,  and  to  conse- 
crate was  the  work  of  a  prophet. 

2.  He  fails  to  discriminate  between  sanctification 
and  regeneration.     Because  Aaron  (as  he  erroneous- 
ly asserts,)  could  sanctify  in  the  sense  of  consecrate, 
therefore  Christ  can  regenerate.     But  this  is  illog- 
ical and  shows  a  failure  to  distinguish  that  is  fatal 
to  his  theory. 

3.  Moses,  Joshua,  and  Samuel  are  said  to  sanctify 
the  people.     At  other  times  the  people  are  told  to 
sanctify  themselves.     And  again  we  read  of  men 
sanctifying  houses  and  goods.    It  was  not  necessary 
that  it  should  be  done  by  a  priest — even  the  ritual 
sanctification. 

4.  It  was  never  said  that  the  sacrifice  sanctified, 
although  the  blood  did.     But  the  blood  had  this 
power  only  because  it  made  atonement. 


344  ATONEMENT. 

5.  The  idea  that  Christ  could  impart  "real  holi- 
ness" instead  of  a  ritual,  because  he  was  a  "  priest 
in  his  own  right,"  is  a  strange  misapprehension  of 
Scripture.  What  does  he  mean  by  u  in  his  own 
right  ?  "  The  Bible  shows  that  Christ,  like  Aaron, 
was  called  to  his  work  (Heb.  v.  4,  5),  and,  like 
Aaron,  was  consecrated  and  set  apart.  It  would  be 
hard  to  find  a  greater  medley  than  Dr.  Burney  gives 
in  this  extract. 

Burney. — "4.  Whatever  is  offered  in  sacrifice  by 
priestly  authority  sanctifies  that  for  which  it  is 
offered,  so  as  to  render  it  acceptable  to  God  in  either 
a  ritual  or  real  sense." — Page  202. 

Comment. — This  indicates  the  same  mis-concep- 
tion as  to  priest  and  sacrifice.  A  sacrifice  was  never 
offered  to  sanctify  the  offerer,  but  to  make  atonement 
for  him,  and  only  as  it  did  this  was  he  accepted  of 
the  Lord. 

Burney. — "5.  Therefore,  when  the  great  High- 
priest  made  his  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  sanctified 
all  humanity  in  such  a  sense  that  God  can  be  just 
in  justifying  them  that  believe  in  Jesus.  God  is 
just  in  justifying  such,  simply  because  they  by 
faith  are  made  partakers  of  Christ's  holiness,  or 
nature,  or  spiritual  life,  just  as  the  ingrafted  scion 
partakes  of  the  life  of  the  stock  into  which  it  is 
inserted.  Because  of  this  ethical  and  spiritual  union 
with  him,  he  is  the  lyord,  their  righteousness." — 
Page  201. 

Comment. — i.  He  here  fully  recognizes  the  im- 
parting of  life,  and  in  this  we  are  in  full  accord, 
with  this  difference  :  that  we  look  upon  it  as  a  part 
.  of  redemption,  but  not  the  whole. 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  345 

2.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  makes  all  men  accept- 
able—sanctifies all.     Then,  are  they  acceptable  as 
sinners,  or  because  sin  is  not  imputed  to  them  ?    If 
sin  is  not  imputed  to  them,  on  what  ground  ?   What 
becomes  of  it? 

3.  This  being  made  acceptable  is  the  same  old 
difficulty  in  another  form.     They  are  made  accept- 
able, and  they  are  not.     Christ's  sacrifice  sanctifies, 
and  it  does  not. 

4.  u  Made  his  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  sanctified 
all  humanity  in  such  a  sense  that  God  can  be  just 
in  justifying  them  that  believe  in  Jesus."     Then 
God  could  not  justly  justify  the  believer  without 
the  sacrifice.     That  is  the  plain  and  only  meaning 
of  the  words.     But  in  the  next  sentence  we  read, 
"God   is  just  in  justifying   such,  simply   because 
they  by  faith  are  made  partakers  of  Christ's  holi- 
ness," etc.     Here  it  is  just  "simply"  because  of 
life  being  imparted.     But  this  contradicts  what  goes 
before.     This  is  the  logical  result  of  trying  to  put 
the  non-penal  theory  into  garments  made  for  substi- 
tution.    But  let  us  press  the  matter  a  little  further. 

Would  the  impartation  of  life  alone  be  sufficient 
to  save  ?  Burney  must  answer  this  in  the  affirm- 
ative. .  He  holds  that  God  only  requires  the  re- 
moval of  the  criminality. 

If  this  is  all  that  is  needed,  why  is  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  required?  We  pass  on  to  find  further 
light,  if  we  can. 

Burney. — U6.  But  you  wish  to  know  the  author- 
ity for  the  assertion  that  Christ  by  his  sacrificial  death 
did  sanctify,  set  apart,  or  appropriate,  humanity  to 


346  ATONEMENT. 

God  in  such  a  sense  that  each  individual  can  come 
to  God  by  faith  in  Christ  and  be  accepted  and  saved 
through  him.  This  authority  is  clear  and  explicit. 
1  Wherefore  Jesus,  that  he  might  sanctify  the  peo- 
ple with  his  own  blood,  suffered  without  the  gate.' 
(Heb.  xiii.  12.)" — Page  202. 

Comment. — i.  He  here  recognizes  that  men  could 
not  be  saved  by  faith  without  this  sacrifice.  Does 
he  mean  that  the  sacrifice  was  necessary  to  make  it 
just  for  him  to  do  it,  or  that  it  was  necessary  as  the 
means  to  the  end,  the  end  being  the  imparting  of 
life.  If  he  means  the  last,  it  is  a  play  upon  words 
to  speak  as  he  does  in  the  last  quotation. 

2.  This  authority,  "clear  and  explicit,"  what 
does  it  teach?  Does  it  teach  that  he  did  or 
"might "  sanctify  the  people ?  If  Burney's  exegesis 
is  true,  it  logically  results  in  Universalism.  Let  us 
see.  ' '  By  the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  by  the 
offering  of  the  body  of  the  Jesus  Christ  once  for 
all."  (Heb.  x.  10.)  This  evidently  is  the  same 
truth,  a  parallel  text.  Again,  "  For  by  one  offering 
he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctified." 
(x.  14.) 

If  the  truth  applies  to  all  men,  then  all  men  are 
saved.  The  true  application  is  to  the  Christian. 
Never  in  any  scripture  does  the  blood  of  Christ 
sanctify  a  sinner. 

Burney. — "  7.  That  this  sanctification  is  not  the 
personal,  saving  sanctification  of  believers  is  proven 
by  the  facts  that  it  was  accomplished  at  the  time  of 
his  death,  that  it  was  irrespective  of  faith,  and  that 
the  people — all  nations  indiscriminately — are  the  ob- 
jects of  it. 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  347 

' '  It  was  the  grand  antitype  of  the  atonement  made 
on  the  great  day  of  the  atonement  ....  for  all 
the  people  ;  by  virtue  of  which,  and  only  by  which, 
the  individual  could  daily,  or  as  often  as  he  pleased, 
during  the  succeeding  year,  bring  his  individual 
sacrifices  before  the  altar." — Page  203. 

Comment. — i.  Burney's  idea  as  to  the  relation  of 
the  Day  of  Atonement  to  individual  sacrifices  has  no 
Bible  foundation.  Long  before  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment had  a  place,  sacrifices  were  offered.  The  Day 
of  Atonement  was  special  to  the  Jew,  sacrifices  were 
universal  as  the  race. 

2.  The  work  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  for 
all  the  Lord's  people,  but  not  for  any  beyond.     If 
Burney's  parallel  is  true,  then  as  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment was  for  the  chosen  people  only,  logically,  we 
have  a  limited  atonement. 

3.  ' '  That  he  might ' '  does  not  imply  that  he  did. 
It  only  shows  availability,  leaving  the  question  of 
actual  sane tifi cation  to  be  settled  on  other  grounds. 

Summing  up  the  whole  examination,  it  seems 
that  Dr.  Burney  holds  that  all  that  is  needed  is  the 
removal  of  the  depraved  nature.  Yet  he  recognizes 
that  God  is  angry,  and  needs  to  be  propitiated.  We 
frankly  say  that  just  here  we  find  it  difficult  to 
comprehend  the  meaning  of  Burney.  Sometimes 
he  seems  to  make  the  removal  of  the  sin  propitiate, 
and  then  again,  he  seems  to  recognize  more.  If  we 
understand  him  here,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  propi- 
tiates, appeases  the  anger  of  God,  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  make  it  possible  for  God  to  impart  life  to 
the  believer.  In  this  we  are  in  exact  accord. 


348  ATONEMENT. 

But  the  question  comes,  how  does  Christ's  sacrifice 
propitiate  ? 

Burney. — v'The  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  seems 
to  propitiate,  because  it  was  an  act  of  perfect  obe- 
dience— obedience  unto  death — which,  as  a  sacrifice, 
was  to  God  a  sweet-smelling  savor,  and  which  fur- 
nishes an  expedient  by  which  justice  and  mercy 
fully  concur  in  the  salvation  of  believers  and  all  the 
prerogatives  of  God  as  universal  Father  and  Gov- 
ernor are  fully  honored — that  is,  we  are  saved  by 
grace,  not  by  law,  nor  in  violation  of  law,  but  in 
accordance  with  law." — Page  310. 

Comment. — Certainly  very  disappointing.  Bur- 
ney  discusses  largely  u penal  substitution,"  law 
and  penalty,  Bible  atonements,  etc.,  but  here  at  the 
heart  of  the  question  where  every  thing  hinges,  he 
has  but  little  to  say.  How  does  Christ's  sacrifice 
propitiate  God  ?  Substitutionists  say  by  his  meet- 
ing the  demands  of  God  against  the  sinner,  in 
their  stead  or  place.  What  Burney  says  is  found 
in  this  extract. 

First.  It  makes  Christ's  death  an  act  of  obedience 
to  law.  We  have  sufficiently  examined  this. 

Second.  It  makes  his  sacrifice  propitiate  God  for 
us.  But  how  ?  We  have  been  impressed  that  Dr. 
Burney  really  gives  two  answers  to  this  question- 
one  real,  the  other  unreal.  This  seems  to  be  neces- 
sitated by  the  effort  to  harmonize  his  theory  with 
Bible  language  and  Bible  facts.  They  are  indicated 
in  the  double  language  of  the  extracts  we  have 
given.  It  propitiates  because  it  was  an  act  of  obe- 
dience. It  propitiates  because  it  furnishes  an  expe- 
dient, etc.  If  we  understand  Burney,  he  really 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  349 

teaches  that  the  removal  of  the  depravity  is  that 
which  propitiates  God.  This  depravity  is  removed 
by  the  impartation  of  Christ's  holy  life  to  men 
when  they  believe;  this  can  be  imparted  because  it 
is  brought  into  the  sphere  of  humanity  by  the  union 
of  the  divine  and  the  human  in  Christ.  This  is 
the  non-penal  theory,  and  all  it  requires.  "To 
disobey  is  to  be  put  under  penalty."  "To  return 
to  obedience  is  to  be  freed  from  the  penalty."  Bur- 
ney  can  not  show  a  rational  ground  for  the  death  of 
Christ  on  this  theory,  nor  even  for  the  Incarnation. 
Divine  life  could  be  imparted  without  either,  if 
nothing  more  is  needed  than  its  impartation.  Dr. 
Burney  will  hardly  hold  that  we  are  made  partakers 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  for  the  word  says, 
"partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  Nothing  less 
will  do.  Dr.  Burney  sees  that  this,  while  the  true 
logical  conclusion  from  his  premises,  will  not  harmo- 
nize with  what  the  Bible  says  of  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ.  He  thus  recognizes  that  God  is 
propitiated  by  the  death  of  Christ,  but  as  to  how, 
he  has  no  theory  at  all,  for  in  answer  to  what  is 
practically  the  same  question,  he  answers : 

' '  Omniscience  alone,  I  suppose,  could  answer 
the  question." — Page  311. 

Is  there  any  ground,  in  justice,  for  God's  anger? 
Is  it  more  than  capricious  humor  ?  If  there  is  any 
just  basis  for  that  anger,  must  it  not  be  removed 
before  the  anger  can  be  ? 

We  believe  the  anger  is  appeased,  because  Christ 
met  and  satisfied  the  demand  for  retribution. 

Dr.  Burney  believes  that  the  "one  act  of  obedi- 


350  ATONEMENT. 

ence"  propitiates,  yet  there  is  nothing  to  link  the 
sinner  with  this  obedience,  it  not  being-  vicarious. 
But  how  it  propitiates  he  fails  to  tell  us. 

Burney. — u  The  Bible  sometimes  refers  Christ's 
propitiatory  work  to  his  sufferings,  and  sometimes 
to  his  death.  When  the  word  suffering  is  used,  it 
should,  I  think,  be  always  understood  in  a  meto- 
nymical  sense;  or,  as  the  cause  put  for  the  effect, 
and  is  equivalent  to  death,  which  is  the  natural 
effect  of  suffering." — Page  258. 

Comment. — It  is  one  objection  to  Biirney's  the- 
ory that  he  has  to  explain  away  the  force  of  so 
many  plain  scriptures.  Suffering  and  death  are 
never  synonymous,  and  are  never  so  used  in  the 
Scriptures.  Blood  shedding  and  death  are. 

Burney. — "Had  it  been  possible  for  Christ  to 
experience  a  sacrificial  death  without  suffering  at 
all,  either  bodily  or  mentally,  the  propitiatory  sac- 
rifice would  have  been  accepted." — Page  259. 

Comment. — i.  If  the  sufferings  were  unneces- 
sary, why  did  he  suffer  ?  He  was  not  under  the 
necessity  of  death,  and,  therefore,  was  not  under 
the  necessity  of  suffering.  His  death,  being  in  the 
highest  sense  voluntary,  could  have  been  endured 
without  suffering. 

2.  In  the  text  Burney  quotes,  "  Ought  not  Christ 
to  have  suffered  these  things  ?' '  the  ought,  or  obli- 
gation, was  to  siiffer  as  well  as  to  die.  Substitu- 
tion fully  recognizes  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  the 
non-penal  theory  does  not.  Every  text  that  speaks 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  is  therefore  a  proof  text 
against  the  non-penal  theory. 


ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST.  351 

3.  And  here  we  advance  an  argument  that  forever 
destroys  the  non-penal  theory.  It  is  a  fact  that 
Christ  did  suffer,  and  that  those  sufferings  were  the 
greatest  known  to  men.  According  to  Burney,  sin 
and  penalty  are  causally  connected,  what,  then,  was 
the  cause  of  Chrises  sufferings?  Can  obedience 
to  the  law  of  love  causally  produce  suffering? 
This,  according  to  Dr.  Burney 's  own  philosophy 
and  logic,  is  impossible.  Can  we  have  an  effect 
without  a  cause?  That,  also,  is  impossible.  How, 
then,  are  we  to  explain  the  sufferings  of  Christ? 
What  caused  them  ?  We  believe  that  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  Christ  are  insurmountable  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  the  non-penal  theory,  and  forever 
destroy  it. 


CHAPTER   XXII. 
BURNEY'S  OBJECTIONS  TO  SUBSTITUTION. 

We  begin  with  those  that  ought  to  be  the  most 
weighty,  his  "Scripture  proof.1'  His  first  quota- 
tion is  Eph.  v.  2 :  UA  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet- 
smelling  savor."  On  this  he  says: 

Burney. — u  If  Christ's  sufferings  were  penal — a 
real  punishment  for  sin — then  we  are  required  to 
believe  that  God,  who  is  love,  delights  in,  takes 
pleasure  in,  inflicting  penal  woe  upon  the  innocent 
and  the  good." — Page  208. 

Comment. — i.  No  substitutionist  so  holds.  To 
charge  it  as  a  logical  consequence  is  to  ignore  im- 
portant Bible  distinctions  between  the  offerings, 
those  that  are  sweet-savor  offerings,  and  those  that 
are  not. 

2.  But  while  not  true  of  substitution,  the  objec- 
tion may  be  properly  urged  against  the  non-penal 
theory.  Dr.  Burney  does  teach  that  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  are  a  sweet  smell,  which  we  utterly  repu- 
diate as  dishonoring  to  God,  and  "repugnant  to 
the  instincts  that  God  has  endowed  us  with." 
He  says,  ( (  Christ's  sufferings  were  to  him  a  sweet- 
smelling  savor." 

How  can  God  find  pleasure  in  suffering?  The 
non-penal  theory,  when  it  advances  this  heathenish 


OBJECTIONS.  353 

idea,  affirms  that  God  is  cruel — having  pleasure  in 
suffering — when  the  Bible  says  that  "  God  is  love." 
Every  text  that  teaches  the  love  and  goodness  of 
God  is  a  protest  against  the  non-penal  theory. 

Burney. — "  Every  text  in  the  Bible  that  repre- 
sents Christ  as  a  voluntary  agent,  acting  in  the 
interests  of  humanity,  is  a  protest  against  this  pas- 
sive and  penal  obedience  theory,  for  the  sufficient 
reason  that  what  is  voluntary  can  not  be  either 
passive  or  penal." — Page  212. 

Comment. — i.  We  are  not  concerned  about  u  pas- 
sive and  penal  obedience, ' '  as  they  are  terms  we  do 
not  like  or  use.  But  that  substitution  requires 
that  Christ  should  be  a  stick  or  stone,  entirely  des- 
titute of  volition,  is  certainly  an  unwarrantable 
assumption.  The  essence  of  his  work  was  in 
"coming"  to  do  the  Father's  will,  and  only  as  he 
assumed,  of  his  own  volition,  our  place,  could  he  be 
our  substitute.  Just  what  Burney  means  by  u  what 
is  voluntary  is  not  ....  penal,"  is  not  plain.  If 
he  means  the  penalty,  of  course  it  is  not;  volition 
belongs  to  persons  only.  If  he  means  that  the  in- 
fliction of  the  penalty  is  not  voluntary,  then  he  di- 
vorces God  from  it,  and  it  is  wrong  to  speak  of  God  as 
punishing  sin.  If  lie  means  that  submission  to  a 
penalty  is  not  voluntary,  we  say  that  many  a  man  has 
surrendered  himself  to  the  law  and  borne  its  pen- 
alty. If  he  means  that  its  assumption  by  a  substi- 
tute would  not  be  voluntary,  it  is  manifestly  untrue, 
as  to  assume  is  a  voluntary  act,  and  no  one  holds 
that  Christ  was  a  substitute  against  his  will.  If 
he  means  "penal"  in  his  own  sense  of  a  conse- 
24 


354  ATONEMENT. 

quence,  it  is  a  begging  of  the  question.     We  reject 
his  definition  of  penal  in  toto. 

2.  The  only  text  he  quotes  is  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do 
thy  will,  O  God."  But  this  text  is  squarely 
opposed  to  the  non- penal  theory,  because  it  tells  us 
what  Christ's  object  was  in  coming.  Dr.  Burney 
makes  it  his  object  after  he  came.  Then  Christ's 
coining  from  heaven  to  earth,  his  becoming  poor 
when  he  was  rich,  was  all  purposeless.  The  will 
Christ  came  to  do  was  God's  will  as  to  the  salva- 
tion of  men.  The  non-penal  theory  reduces  it  to 
Christ's  law  keeping,  hence  it  necessitates  that  we 
are  saved  by  a  legal  righteousness,  whether  it  be 
imputed  or  imparted  (if  such  can  be). 

Burney. — u  Every  text  in  the  Bible  that  specifies 
the  object  of  Christ's  mission  is  a  protest  against 
the  penal  scheme. 

For  example,  "Jesus  came  into  the  world  to 
save  sinners. ' '  How  save  them  ?  The  penal  theory 
answers,  By  bearing  the  punishment  of  their  sins 
in  their  stead.  The  answer  is  unnatural,  not  to 
say  impossible." — Page  213. 

Comment. — The  penal  theory  of  Dr.  Burney 
teaches  some  very  strange  things.  He  sees  substi- 
tution in  a  convex  mirror.  Our  answer  to  the 
question  would  be  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
being  in  their  stead,  saves  from  the  penalty 
of  transgression,  while  the  imparted  life  saves 
from  depravity  and  its  consequences,  thus  fitting 
for  heaven. 

If  he  saves  them,  how  does  the  statement  that 
he  saves  conflict  with  it?  Burney  answers,  be- 


OBJECTIONS.  355 

cause  salvation  is  impossible,  according  to  his 
opinion,  by  substitution.  As  salvation  without 
substitution  is  impossible,  every  such  text  is  a  pro- 
test against  Burneyism. 

Burney.—  "  Christ  '  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  of  himself.'  Substitution  requires 
this  to  mean  that  Christ  came  to  suffer  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  as  a  penal  sacrifice." — Page  213. 

Comment. — Dr.  Burney  here  mixes  up  condition 
and  consequent.  In  the  text  he  quotes,  we  have 
the  condition — Christ's  sacrifice,  and  the  consequent 
—sins  put  away.  Dr.  Burney,  in  his  statement, 
makes  a  condition  of  both  clauses.  To  "  suffer  the 
punishment  (penalty)  of  sin,"  and  a  "penal  sacri- 
fice," are  synonymous.  To  give  a  fair  statement  it 
should  be,  ' '  Christ  puts  away  sin  by  offering  him- 
self as  a  penal  sacrifice. ' ' 

As  the  essential  part  of  the  sacrifice  was  the 
death  of  the  victim,  Dr.  Burney,  having  no  logical 
use  for  the  death  of  Christ  in  his  theory,  the  text  is 
a  protest  against  it. 

Burney. — u  '  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was 
manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the 
devil. '  ' '  Substitution  requires  us  to  say  that  Christ 
destroys  the  works  of  the  devil  by  enduring  the 
punishment  of  all  the  sins  Satan  is  able  to  insti- 
gate. This  is  like  saying  that  physicians  destroy 
disease  by  suffering  the  pains  that  it  produces  in 
their  patients." 

Comment. — i.  This  is  what  substitution  would 
say  if  it  ignored  (which  it  does  not)  the  moral 
aspect  of  the  atonement. 


356  ATONEMENT. 

2.  As  it  is  u  works, "  not  work,  what  are  these? 
Is  not  the  exposure  to  the  curse  of  the  law  one  of 
the  works  of  the  devil?  As  Burney  ignores  the 
legal  aspect  of  the  atonement,  we  may  say  of  the 
non-penal  theory  that  it  is  like  saving  a  murderer 
from  the  gallows  by  making  a  Christian  of  him. 

Burney. — u  Every  text  that  gives  any  insight 
into  the  character  of  Christ's  feelings  or  sufferings 
is  a  protest  against  penality.  We  know,  if  we 
know  any  thing  of  the  laws  of  mind,  that  obedience 
and  disobedience  to  law  are  productive  of  radically 
distinct  states  of  feeling." — Page  213. 

Comment. — He  assumes  that  substitution  requires 
that  Christ  should  experience  the  same  mental 
states  as  the  sinner.  This  we  utterly  repudiate. 
He  confounds  the  consequences  of  depravity,  which 
can  never  be  borne  by  a  substitute,  with  the  pen- 
alty of  transgression. 

Burney. — u  For  God  to  satisfy  his  own  justice  in 
the  place  of  the  sinner  would  be  to  suffer  the  pen- 
alty of  his  own  law — that  is,  to  suffer  the  conse- 
quences of  not  loving  himself,  which  is  incon- 
ceivable. But  if  this  were  possible,  it  would  be  the 
same  thing  as  pardoning  sin  without  any  satisfac- 
tion at  all." 

Comment. — i.  Still  confusion  between  penalty 
and  consequence. 

2.  The  penalty  suffered  was  for  the  sins  of  others, 
not  his  own,  and  was  endured  without  any  crim- 
inality on  his  part. 

3.  It  is  as  man  that  Christ  suffers,  not  as  God. 

4.  Burney's  theory  is  open  to  the  same  argument ; 


OBJECTIONS.  357 

Christ  died  of  love  to  himself,  if  his  logic  above  is 
sound.  The  whole  objection  ignores  the  person- 
ality of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  the  moral  government 
of  God,  with  its  claims. 

5.  While  substitution  is  not  pardon  without  sat- 
isfaction, it  is  to  poor  sinners  the  highest  grace; 
and  pardon  is  an  act  of  grace,  because  the  whole  sal- 
vation is  provided  by  Him,  and  is  unmerited  by  us. 

Burney. — "If  penalty  endured  by  a  substitute 
compensates  God,  or  justice,  or  any  thing  else,  then, 
of  course,  it  can  do  no  less  when  endured  by  the 
principals.  Hence,  it  inevitably  follows  that  Satan 
and  his  hosts  are  compensating  God  or  justice  for 
all  their  sins." 

Comment. — i.  We  do  not  accept  the  term  "com- 
pensating," and  if  any  penalist  has-  used  it,  we 
leave  him  to  bear  the  brunt  of  Burney's  logic, 
which  here  is  certainly  sound.  The  law-giver  de- 
mands obedience,  and  threatens  a  penalty  for  dis- 
obedience. Where  there  is  disobedience,  there  is 
therefore  the  demand  that  the  penalty  shall  be 
inflicted.  This  penalty,  when  borne  by  a  substi- 
tute, meets — satisfies — this  demand.  We  abide  the 
logic,  that  if  this  is  done  by  a  substitute,  it  must 
do  the  same  when  done  by  the  principals.  If  this 
were  not  true,  how  would  punishment  be  just? 

2.  Bearing  the  penalty,  vicariously  or  personally, 
never  saves  from  depravity  and  its  consequences, 
and  gives  no  title  or  fitness  for  heaven.  As  this 
comes  only  from  union  with  Christ,  no  devil  can 
ever  be  saved. 


358  ATONEMENT. 

Burney. — "Sins  pardoned  are  not  punished,  and 
sins  punished  are  not  pardoned;  that  pardon  is 
exemption  from  punishment  on  conditions  satis- 
factory to  the  pardoning  power." 

Comment. — Deliverance  is  not  pardon,  nor  is 
pardon  deliverance.  Past  sins,  having  been  pun- 
ished, can  not  be  pardoned.  Sins  not  commit- 
ted can  not  be  pardoned,  for  they  have  no  exist- 
ence. Then  the  non-penal  theory  has  no  pardon; 
for,  according  to  its  teaching,  every  sin  has  been 
punished  when  committed. 

:  u  Sins  pardoned  are  not  punished,"  etc.,  is  true 
as  to  an  offender  in  person,  but  does  not  apply  to 
substitution,  where  the  conditions  are  changed. 

Burney. — "The  non-penal  denies  that  there  is 
.any  propitiation  in  penal  suffering." 

Comment. — i.  Then  it  is  wrong  to  say,  "he  has 
been  punished  enough,"  and  it  is  a  mistake  that 
there  is  any  thing  that  prompts  us  to  so  speak. 

2.  We  most  certainly  deny  that  there  is  any  pro- 
pitiation in  the  non-penal  theory. 

Burney. — "It  is  impossible  for  one  person  to 
obey  the  moral  law — or  to  love  God,  in  the  room  of 
another,  and  to  suffer  the  penalty  (which  is  the  con- 
sequence of  not  loving  him)  in  the  place  of 
another;  that  Christ  obeys  the  law  in  his  own  place; 
that  his  own  personal  righteousness  or  obedience  is 
imparted  to  believers,  in  the  act  of  believing,  as 
was  Adam's  vitiated  nature  and  corruption  evi- 
dently imparted  to  us  by  heredity."  Page  192. 

Comment. — :i.  The  same  old  confusion  between 
penalty  and  consequence! 


OBJECTIONS.  359 

2.  An  imparted  obedience  is  absurd  and  impos- 
sible; as  well  talk  of  Adam's  personal  disobedience 
being  imparted.  It  is  life,  not  obedience,  that  is 
imparted.  Acts  can  not  be  imparced,  a  nature  may; 
hence,  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature. 
But  if  the  ace  can  not  be  impaled,  the  mental  state, 
we  suppose,  can  not  be  awakened;  and  therefore,  to 
obtain  the  "mental  state,"  we  must  have  an  im- 
parted obedience.  It  is  the  same  difficulty  again, 
that  we  pointed  out  before,  giving  the  sense  of 
dxoattMHt  to  dsx 


Burney.  —  "How  can  penal  suffering  be  as  a  sweet 
savor  to  any  being  less  than  satanic  ?  —  Page  209. 

Comment.  —  Dr.  Burney  utterly  fails  to  compre- 
hend the  distinction  between  sweet-savor  offerings 
and  those  that  are  not.  Substitution  does  not  teach 
that  Christ's  sufferings  were  a  sweet  savor. 

Burney.  —  "If  he  was  a  substitute  for  men,  and 
every  sin  determines  its  own  kind  and  degree  of 
punishment,  then  he,  of  course,  endured  all  the 
different  kinds  of  punishment  possible  to  men,  and 
also  an  amount  equal  to  all  that  would  be  possible 
to  men."  —Page  215. 

Comment.  —  i.  Sin  never  determines  any  thing. 
To  determine  is  to  exercise  a  judgment,  and  no  one 
is  competent  to  do  this  but  God.  The  idea  of  sin 
determining  and  fixing  punishment  is  on  the  face 
of  it  absurd.  It  is  God  alone  who,  in  the  judgment, 
will  determine  the  penalty  and  inflict  it.  We  have 
explained  this,  however,  in  full. 


360  ATONEMENT. 

Burney. — u  Christ,  by  the  obedience  which  he 
learned  through  what  he  suffered,  became  our 
great  High-priest,  and  consequently  the  author  of 
eternal  salvation  to  them  that  obey  him.  But  it  is 
pertinent  to  inquire,  is  penal  suffering — penal  fire 
— a  prerequisite  to  the  priesthood  ?  If  it  is,  then, 
of  course,  Christ  suffered  it.  If  it  is  not,  then 
Christ  did  not  suffer  it.  The  bare  conception  that 
Christ  was  named  of  God  a  priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchizedek,  because  he  endured  penal  wrath, 
shocks  all  reason.  Why  might  not  devils  become 
priests  according  to  this  theology." — Page  217. 

Comment. — i.  Burney  is  here  commenting  on 
Heb.  v.  7-10,  and  his  exposition  is  that  Christ  be- 
came a  priest  on  the  ground  of  his  sufferings,  and 
that  because  a  priest,  the  author  of  salvation.  This 
misplaces  the  order  of  Paul.  He  learned  obedience 
by  suffering;  and  having  been  perfected,  became  to 
all  that  obey  him  the  author  of  salvation.  Called, 
or  saluted,  by  God  as  a  priest.  His  priesthood  rested 
upon  his  being  the  author  of  salvation,  and  by  his 
priesthood  he  finished  it.  Priesthood  is  founded 
upon  atonement,  as  we  saw  in  the  case  of  Phinehas. 

2.  It  must  be  remembered  that  while  there  was  a 
sweet  savor — a  burnt-offering — aspect  of  the  work 
of  Christ,  there  can  be  no  such  to  the  sufferings  of 
devils.  If  the  sufferings  of  devils  could  make  atone- 
ment, the  Doctor's  argument  might  have  force. 

Burney. — "No  high-priest  or  any  other  priest, 
Jewish  or  pagan,  ever  bore  the  guilt  and  punishment 
of  those  for  whom  he  ministered.  Substitution  re- 
quires no  priest.  As  a  theory  an  executioner  is  all 
it  needs." — Page  27. 


OBJECTIONS.  361 

Comment. — i.  "No  priest,  Jewish  or  pagan," 
was  ever  both  priest  and  sacrifice.  In  this  Christ 
is  unique. 

2.  Christ    bore    our    sins   as   the   lamb,   not   as 
priest. 

3.  Substitutionists  show  that  after  the  offerer  has 
slain  the  victim,  a  priest  is  needed  to  present  the 
blood  to  God  and  make  intercession  for  the  believer  ; 
this  is  a  real  need.     His  idea  of  an  executioner  is 
a  misconception  of  the  priest's  work.     But  as  Bur- 
ney  has  shown  no  real  need  for  the  death  of  Christ, 
the   non-penal   theory,    by   rejecting   substitution, 
rejects  a  priest. 

Btirney. — "It  is  a  self-evident  proposition  that 
the  right  to  substitute  one  kind  and  one  amount  of 
punishment  for  another  is  the  right  to  set  aside 
punishment  altogether,  and  to  save  the  sinner 
without  any  atonement,  or  expiation,  or  satisfaction 
to  justice."-— Page  104. 

Comment. — i.  It  is  not  a  question  of  "right," 
but  can  God  consistently  clear  the  guilty  ? 

2.  While  this  objection  has  force  against  some 
theories  of  substitution,  it  does  not  apply  to  that 
advocated  in  this  book.  We  do  not  hold  that  one 
penalty  is  put  in  the  place  of  another. 

Burney. — "A  child  in  rebellion  against  a  loving 
but  indignant  parent  needs  to  be  changed,  not  the 
parent." — Page  143. 

Comment. — i.  The  relationship  that  is  here  as- 
sumed has  no  existence,  as  nowhere  does  the  Bible 
affirm  that  the  sinner  is  a  son.  Christ  repudiated 


362  ATONEMENT. 

the  claim  when  made  by  the  Jews,  saying,  "  Ye  are 
of  your  father,  the  devil." 

2.  Arguments  founded  upon  the  natural  affection 
of  fallen  men,  with  the  moral  sense  blunted,  and 
the  affection  supreme  over  all  moral  considerations, 
must   be   faulty.     The   relation   of  God    to   fallen 
humanity  is  totally  different  from  that  of  a  loving 
father  and  a  rebellious  child.     This  figure  is  only 
true  as  to  believers.     Such  ideas  necessitate  a  fail- 
ure in  seeing  the  true  ground  of  the  need  of  atone- 
ment. 

3.  Burney  recognizes  propitiation  as  necessary; 
is   this   a   change  in  the   mind  of   the  sinner,   or 
what? 

4.  Again,    the    sinner   can    not  change   himself. 
What  then  ?     On  what  ground  does  God  regenerate 
him? 

Burney. — u  How  could  Christ's  sufferings  recon* 
cile  God's  justice  and  love,  which  had  no  quarrel? 
Does  sin  disharmonize  the  divine  attributes,  as  well 
as  abnormalize  the  human  soul  ?  Surely  if  sin  can 
array  one  attribute  against  another,  or  create  dis- 
harmony in  the  divine  nature,  then  it  must  be 
mightier  than  God  himself." — Page  144. 

Comment. — This  argument  properly  belongs  to 
the  substitutionist.  Dr.  Burney  will  agree  that  God 
is  holy,  and  that  this  holiness  leads  to  separation  from 
the  sinfulness  of  the  creature  and  anger  against  the 
wrong-doer.  He  will  also  agree  that  God  is  love, 
and  therefore  desires  the  happiness  of  all  his  creat- 
ures. Substitutionists  claim  that  to  save  men 
without  meeting  the  demands  of  his  holiness, 


OBJECTIONS.  363 

would  be  "to  disharmonize  the  divine  attributes; " 
and  as  this  is  impossible,  men  can  not  be  saved 
without  atonement.  Dr.  Burney  teaches  that  this  is 
done  when  depravity  is  removed  by  imparting  life. 
If  this  is  all,  is  God  able  to  remove  this  corruption 
by  an  act  of  will  ?  If  he  is  able,  and  this  is  all 
that  is  needed,  will  he  not  save  all  ?  To  admit  that 
God  can  and  will  not,  is  to  admit  a  barrier  in  the 
divine  nature — to  admit  that  God  must  be  pro- 
pitiated— that  he  can  only  save  on  grounds  that  are 
just.  In  the  light  of  Burney' s  objection,  we  see  no 
logical  alternatives  but  a  recognition  of  the  demands 
of  God's  holiness,  or  Universalism. 

To  recognize  this  demand  does  not  "create  dis- 
harmony "  in  the  divine  nature,  for  his  attributes 
remain  in  all  their  perfection  immutably  and  eter- 
nally the  same;  but  so  far  as  men  are  concerned, 
the  perfection  of  God  renders  salvation  impossible 
without  atonement. 

Burney. — u  No  man  voluntarily,  much  less  joy- 
fully, encountered  penalty.  Penalty  is  necessarily 
involuntary,  for  any  suffering  voluntarily  endured 
in  the  interest  of  another  is  not  penalty,  but  bene- 
faction." 

Comment. — i.  When  it  says,  "who,  for  the  joy' 
that  was  set  before  him,"  it  does  not  mean  that  his 
sacrifice  of  himself  was  the  joy,  that  would  be  a 
contradiction.  There  is  no  sacrifice  in  what  is  a 
joy.  It  means  the  joy  that  was  set  before  him  in 
the  results — the  glory — coming  as  the  fruit  of  it; 
hence,  he  ( '  endured ' '  the  cross. 

2.   That  if  a  penalty  be  voluntarily  assumed,  it 


364  ATONEMENT. 

ceases  to  be  a  penalty,  is  pure  assumption.  If  he 
simply  means  that  penalty  can  not  be  so  assumed, 
because  it  is  a  consequence  (from  his  stand-point), 
then  he  begs  the  whole  question.  That  the  volun- 
tary assumption  of  the  penalty  by  a  substitute  de- 
stroys the  vicarious  nature  of  the  transaction  is  self- 
evidently  false.  Of  course,  from  any  theory  of  the 
atonement,  even  the  most  rigid  Calvinistic,  salva- 
tion is  benefaction — a  benefit  conferred — upon  the 
saved.  But  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  manner 
in  which  this  benefit  accrues  to  us  ? 

Burney. — "I  repeat  with  emphasis  that  the  sub- 
stitutionary  theory  requires  no  risen  or  living  inter- 
ceding Christ" 

Comment. — The  non-penal  theory  requires  no 
dead,  and  therefore  no  risen,  Christ,  if  it  is  consistent 
with  its  own  fundamental  principles.  Every  reader 
of  Burney 's  book  can  see  that  the  death  of  Christ  is 
an  incubus  to  his  theory.  The  substitution  advo- 
cated in  these  pages  requires — necessitates — both  a 
dead  and  a  risen  Christ. 

Burney. — u  L,et  me  emphasize  this  immutable 
truth :  The  penalty  can  never  remove  the  dis- 
obedience or  guilt  of  which  it  is  the  consequence. ' ' 
—Page  257. 

Comment. — i.  True,  therefore,  from  any  stand- 
point, on  any  theory,  it  must  remain  eternally  true 
that  we  did  commit  the  sin,  and  that  its  demerit  is 
ours.  We  all  recognize  this  and  sing — 

( 'Amazing  grace,  how  sweet  the  sound 
That  saves  a  wretch  like  me. ' ' 


OBJECTIONS.  365 

How  an  act  of  disobedience  can  be  undone,  or  its 
demerit  ever  removed,  even  Dr.  Burney  fails  to  tell 
us. 

2.  If  he  means  that  bearing  the  penalty  does  not 
remove  depravity,  we  fully  agree,  as  that  is  another 
thing.  On  the  other  hand,  while  the  removal  of 
the  depravity  removes  its  consequences,  it  remains 
eternally  and  immutably  true  that  its  removal  never 
saves  from  penalty  already  incurred. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

BURNEY    ON    THE    PERSON    OF    CHRIST,    AND    THE 
TRINITY. 

Burney. — "  Christ  possesses  both  a  divine  and  a 
human  nature.  This  fact  is  expressed  by  the  use 
of  these  composite  terms.  The  terms  themselves 
are  mere  names  or  symbols  of  things,  and  not 
themselves  substantial  entities." — Page  20. 

Comment. — This  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  one. 
While  these  words  themselves  are  not  entities,  but 
only  words,  they  still,  as  the  signs  of  ideas,  repre- 
sent substantial  entities.  The  word  God,  it  is  true, 
is  only  a  name;  but  when  we  use  it  of  the  Deity, 
it  represents  what  is  real.  When  we  say  that 
"God  is  love,"  we  do  not  mean  the  term  itself,  but 
the  Being  the  word  represents  to  the  mind.  So 
with  the  term  man.  We  suppose  Dr.  Burney 
would  assent  to  this.  But,  if  we  correctly  under- 
stand him,  he  holds  that,  while  the  terms  God  and 
man  have  substantial  entities  back  of  them,  the 
term  God-man  has  not,  and  simply  means,  in  the 
reality  it  expresses,  God  and  man.  If  this  is  what 
he  means,  it  is  a  denial  that  the  human  and  the 
divine  are  so  united  that  there  is  a  real  unity,  in 
virtue  of  which  Christ  is  one  —  the  God-man. 
Then  Christ  as  God  is  one  person,  and  Christ  as 


THE  TRINITY.  367 

man  another,  separate  and  distinct.  Then  the 
Jesus  of  the  Bible  was  not  really  divine,  and  all 
worship  rendered  to  him  is  idolatry. 

Burney. — "We  call  Christ  a  theandric  person. 
But  this  does  not  imply  that  he  did  or  could  per- 
form any  theandric  acts,  or  any  acts  neither  strictly 
divine  nor  human,  but  something  essentially  differ- 
ent from  both.  His  divine  and  his  human  nature 
were  not  amalgamated,  forming  a  tertium  quid,  and 
of  course  his  acts,  none  of  them,  were  amalga- 
mated acts,  comprising  a  human  and  a  divine  ele- 
ment. On  the  contrary,  his  every  act  was  either 
purely  human  or  purely  divine. 

"  Man  has  a  body  and  a  mind,  but  all  his  suffer- 
ings are  purely  physical  or  mental  —  they  are  not 
amalgamated  sufferings,  but  all  have  their  source 
either  in  the  body  or  in  the  mind,  not  equally  in 
both.  They  deeply  sympathize  with  each  other. 
But  this  they  could  not  do  if  the  suffering  had  its 
source  equally  in  both. — Page  21. 

Comment. — i.  What  does  Burney  mean  by  phys- 
ical suffering  ?  Does  he  mean  that  the  body  feels, 
that  matter  is  capable  of  suffering?  Then  why 
does  not  a  dead  body  suffer?  And  if  matter  can 
feel,  why  can  it  not  know  and  will  ?  More,  how 
can  it  feel  unless  it  knows  that  it  feels?  The  truth 
is,  there  can  be  no  feeling  unless  there  is  at  one  end 
of  the  nerve  an  intelligent  mind  to  receive  impres- 
sions. Dr.  Burney's  illustration,  to  be  pertinent  to 
his  argument,  requires  that  the  body  should  feel 
independently  of  the  mind.  What  we  call  ' '  phys- 
ical" suffering  depends  upon  the  close  union  of 
mind  and  matter.  Not  amalgamation,  but  union. 


368  ATONEMENT. 

His  illustration,  therefore,  properly  belongs  to  a 
theandric  act. 

2.  Dr.  Burney  denies  that  there  is  any  such 
thing  as  a  theandric  act  —  that  is,  an  act  the 
human  and  divine  in  Christ  unite  in  performing — 
claiming  that  every  action  of  Christ's  was  either  a 
God  or  a  man  act.  But  they  were  all  done  by  the 
same  person,  so  that  every  act  of  Christ's  life  may 
be  said  to  be  theandric.  The  whole  life  of  Christ 
stamps  him  as  being  more  than  a  man,  so  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  separate  into  God  and  man 
acts.  We,  therefore,  properly  call  them  theandric 
(Greek,  Theos,  God,  and  aneer  or  andros,  man) — 
literally,  God-man  acts. 

For  example,  meeting  the  leper,  he  says,  in  re- 
sponse to  his  appeal,  u  I  will;  be  thou  clean."  Who 
is  meant  by  the  u  I  ?  "  If  there  are  not  two  person- 
alities, then  this  u  I "  means  the  God-man — the 
L/ord  Jesus  himself.  "I  will,"  the  living  personal- 
ity addressed  responds,  and  to  separate,  as  Dr.  Bur- 
ney would,  the  UI"  from  the  "will"  is  impossible. 

Again,  when  Jesus  came  walking  upon  the  sea, 
was  it  a  human  or  was  it  a  theandric  act  ? 

More,  as  Dr.  Burney  denies  so  strongly  the  exist- 
ence of  three  wills  in  the  Godhead,  we  would  ask, 
what  of  the  L,ord  Jesus  ?  Did  he  have  two  wills  ? 
And  if  he  did,  were  they  united  in  one  person,  or 
was  Christ  two  distinct  persons?  If  Dr.  Burney 
holds  the  first,  he  answers  his  own  objections  to 
the  Trinity.  If  the  last,  then  we  have  Unitarian- 
ism  pure  and  simple — the  divine  manifesting  itself 
through  the  human. 


THE  TRINITY.  369 

3.  It  is  so  important  that  we  understand  this 
question  that  we  will  examine  it  more  at  length. 

Dr.  Burney  rightly  denies  any  amalgamation  of 
the  human  and  the  divine  (the  old  Butychian 
heresy,  that  had  but  few  followers)  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  but  he  errs  in  denying  any  real  union 
between  them  (the  old  Nestorian  error).  Truth, 
as  held  by  the  Church  generally,  lies  between  these 
extremes. 

Mind  and  matter  are  not  amalgamated  in  man  so 
that  a  tertium  quid  is  formed,  that  is  neither  mind 
nor  matter,  yet  their  union  is  real.  More,  by  vir- 
tue of  this  union  the  lower  is  influenced  by  the 
higher.  How  mind  and  matter  are  united  we  do 
not  know  and  can  not  define.  So  with  the  union 
of  the  human  and  divine  in  the  one  person  of  our 


The  question  is,  Do  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
the  two  natures  exist  in  union  (not  amalgamation) 
in  the  one  person  ? 

First.  In  many  scriptures  both  natures  are  predi- 
cated of  the  same  person. 

Second.  The  attributes  of  one  nature  are  predi- 
cated, while  the  person  is  designated  by  the  title  of 
the  other. 

Third.  The  personal  pronoun  is  never  used  to  dis- 
tinguish one  nature  from  the  other. 

Fourth.  The  person  of  Christ,  as  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures,  is  the  proper  object  of  worship,  which 
could  not  be  if  the  person  is  not  one. 

Of  the  many  scriptures  that  support  these  prop- 
ositions, the  follow^g^llj'l^ujjjge  as  proof. 
25 


370  ATONEMENT. 

1.  u  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is 
given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoul- 
der; and  his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Coun- 
sellor, the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace." — Isa.  ix.  6. 

The  "  Mighty  God"  is  the  name  of  the  child 
that  was  to  be  born,  which  can  only  be  understood 
as  we  recognize  the  unity  of  his  person. 

2.  "  But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou 
be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of 
thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  Ruler 
in  Israel ;  whose  going  forth  have  been  from  of  old, 
from  everlasting." — Micah  v.  2. 

"Whose  going  forth  has  been  from  the  days  of 
eternity"  [margin],  is  here  said  of  the  one  who 
was  to  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  which  could  not 
be  unless  the  union  was  such  that  he  was  one 
person. 

3.  "Whose  are  the  father's,  and  of  whom  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came,  zvho  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever." — Rom.  ix.  5. 

A  plain  affirmation  of  the  divinity  of  the  same 
person  who  was  born  a  Jew. 

4.  "Who,   being  in  the  form  of  God,    .    .     .    . 
took  upon   him  the    form    of   a    servant." — Phil, 
ii.  5-9. 

Here  both  natures  are  spoken  of,  where  only  one 
and  the  same  person  is  intended. 

5.  "  I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David." — 
Rev.  xxii.  16. 


THE  TRINITY.  371 

How  could  this  be  true,  if  there  be  not  two  nat- 
ures in  one  person  ?  u  I ' ' — the  same  I — is  both 
( '  root ' '  and  ' '  offspring. ' ' 

6.  "To  feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood." — Acts  xx.  28. 

Here  the  unity  of  the  person  is  so  emphatically 
brought  out  that  God  is  said  to  have  purchased  the 
church  with  his  blood. 

7.  ' '  Worthy  is  the  L,amb  that  was  slain  to  receive 
power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing." — Rev.  v.  12. 

Here  divine  honor  and  worship  is  given  to  the 
Lamb  that  was  slain.  To  separate  the  divinity  and 
humanity,  as  Dr.  Burney  does,  would  make  this  to 
be  idolatry. 

A  careful  consideration  of  these,  and  similar 
verses,  will  show  why  the  church  has  always  held 
strenuously  to  the  truth  of  the  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  one  person. 

Burney. — "If  we  choose  to  predicate  three  per- 
sonalities of  the  divine  nature,  and  do  not  take  the 
word  person  in  a  unique  and  nondescript  sense — in 
a  sense  utterly  exclusive  of  the  will,  which  is  the 
central  attribute  of  person  in  its  ordinary  and  proper 
sense,  we  are  hopelessly  involved  in  Tritheism.  For 
if  there  are,  in  some  unique  and  indefinable  sense, 
three  personalities  in  the  divine  nature,  there  are 
not  certainly  three  wills,  or  if  there  are,  then  it  is 
sun-clear  that  there  are  three  Gods." — Atonement 
and  Law,  page  212, 

Comment. — i.  We  believe  it  is  true  that  the  ad- 
vocates of  all  forms  of  the  Moral  Influence  theory 


372  ATONEMENT. 

of  the  atonement,  have  generally  held  Sabellian 
views  of  the  Trinity. 

Sabellius  denied  that  there  was  a  trinity  of  persons, 
but  held  that  the  Godhead  was  revealed  as  a  trinity. 
This,  however,  being  simply  three  different  ways  in 
which  the  same  person  was  revealed,  three  different 
points  of  view  from  which  God  may  be  looked 
upon,  three  different  relations  in  which  he  places 
himself  before  the  world.  In  other  words,  he  taught 
a  trinity  of  manifestations,  or  offices,  instead  of  a 
trinity  of  persons. 

Horace  Bushnell,  who  stands  as  the  foremost 
representative  of  the  Moral  Influence  theory  in 
America,  held  to  what  he  called  an  "  instrumental 
trinity,"  or  three  impersonations  of  one  and  the 
same  being.  Abelard  discussed  the  Trinity  under 
the  divine  attributes.  Maurice,  Young,  McL^eod 
Campbell,  and  others,  all  held  views  that  were 
practically  Sabellian. 

A  careful  examination  of  what  Dr.  Burney  has 
written  shows  that  this  is.  substantially  his  position. 
True,  he  retains  the  word  "person,"  but  it  is  in 
( *  some  unique  and  nondescript  sense, ' '  and  not  in 
u  its  proper  "  and  "  ordinary  "meaning. 

In  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  of  Feb.  9,  1888, 
lie  uses  the  following  language  as  to  "person  :  " 

"Will  is  real,  but  person  is  nominal — a  mere 
name." 

'  *  Assuming  (his  opponent)  that  the  word  person 
expresses  reality  and  not  a  mere  conception  of  the 
mind." 

"  I,  with   my   views.,  of   personality,  can   assert 


THE  TRINITY.  373 

three  persons  in  one  substance,   without  asserting 
three  Gods." 

Dr.  Burney  regards  the  word  person  as  a  "mere 
conception,"  that  can  be  applied  in  almost  any 
sense.  As  the  one  God  has  manifested  himself  in 
three  relations,  the  distinction  between  these  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  personal  pronoun,  and  for  this  rea- 
son alone  he  speaks  of  three  persons. 

Person,  with  Burney,  is  a  "mere  name,"  and  does 
not  express  reality.  Logically,  he  is  on  Sabellian 
or  Unitarian  ground,  and  the  trinity  is  simply  one 
of  offices  or  manifestations. 

The  great  objections  to  this  are: 

First.  When  the  Son  became  Incarnate,  the  Fa- 
ther ceased  to  be,  and  with  the  coming  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  Son  passed  away.  Or  else  each  represents 
but  a  part  of  the  Deity. 

Second.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  number  of 
persons  should  be  limited  to  three.  Why  not  extend 
the  same  figure  to  all  offices  of  the  Godhead  ? 

Third.  The  language  of  the  Bible  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  such  a  theory  of  the  Trinity.  How 
can  Jesus  be  our  Advocate  with  the  Father?  How 
a  Mediator  ?  These  and  hundreds  of  similar  ques- 
tions may  be  asked,  all  showing  how  utterly  it  is 
out  of  harmony  with  the  Bible  language. 

This  has  never  been  the  faith  of  the  church,  but 
as  expressed  in  the  Confession  is  substantially  that : 

"In  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  are  three 
persons  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eternity — 
God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit." — Confession 
of  Faith,  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  Sec.  7. 


374  ATONEMENT. 

This  embraces  the  following  points  : 

1.  That  there  is  one  and  only  one  God. 

2.  While  the  Scriptures  proclaim  one  God,  they 
reveal  three  distinct  persons,    ' '  of  one  substance, 
power,  and  eternity, ' '  and  invested  with  every  attri- 
bute of  Deity. 

These  appear  to  be  contradictory  propositions, 
but  they  are  taught  in  the  Bible.  Everywhere  in 
the  Bible  these  three  persons  are  distinguished  con- 
stantly from  each  other.  To  make  them  different 
manifestations  of  the  same  person,  is  to  violate  all 
the  rules  of  language.  We  must  insist  as  Bible 
teaching,  the  reality,  and  the  distinction  of  these 
persons.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  that  these 
three  divine  persons  "co-exist  in  a  manner  incom- 
prehensible to  mortals,  as  one  supreme  and  ever- 
lasting God" 

That  the  Deity  exists  as  a  Trinity  is  taught  in 
many  ways  other  than  the  use  of  the  personal  pro- 
nouns, and  the  way  in  which  the  pronouns  are  used. 
We  can  not  here  discuss  the  great  question  of  the 
Trinity,  but  only  call  attention  to  a  small  part  of 
the  evidence,  of  a  trinity  of  persons. 

First.   The  term  "Godhead  "  implies  it. 

Second.  It  is  taught  in  the  first  verse  in  the 
Bible.  The  word  for  u  God  "  in  the  Hebrew  being 
plural— "Gods." 

Third.  It  is  taught  in  the  language  used  in  the 
account  of  creation  and  of  the  fall. 

u  And  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness." 


THE  TRINITY.  375 

"And  the  Lord  God  said,  Behold,  the  man  is 
become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  from  evil." 

"  Go  to,  let  us  go  down  and  there  confound  their 
language. ' ' 

Fourth.  It  is  taught  in  Isaiah  vi.  8,  especially 
when  compared  with  John  xii.  40,  and  Acts 
xxviii.  25. 

' '  I  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Whom 
shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us?" 

Who  is  meant  by  us  f  To  whom  was  God  talk- 
ing ?  Does  not  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Bible  point 
to  the  existence  of  three  distinct  persons  in  the 
Godhead?  Yet  it  does  not  teach  Tritheism — three 
Gods — but  Tri-unity. 

Burney, — "If  there  are  three  divine  persons, 
there  are  not  three  divine  wills;  else  there  would 
be  three  Gods." — Atonement  and  Law,  page  141. 

Comment. — i.  Burney  here  logically  denies  that 
there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  word 
can  not  be  used  in  any  material  sense,  and  if  it  has, 
therefore,  any  real  meaning — that  is,  if  it  expresses 
a  real  distinction  in  the  Godhead  (as  the  church 
affirms),  it  must  include  the  will,  which,  as  Dr. 
Burney  says,  is  ' '  the  central  attribute  of  person, 
in  its  ordinary  and  proper  sense." 

The  denial  that  the  word  person,  when  used  of 
the  Godhead,  includes  will,  is,  then,  a  denial  of  any 
proper  or  true  personality.  Dr.  Burney 's  ' '  nonde- 
script" person,  however  "unique,"  can  not  be 
defined,  because  it  has  no  real  existence. 


376  ATONEMENT. 

2.  The  Bible  indicates  that  the  will  of  the  Father 
is  distinct  from  that  of  the  Son.  ' '  Let  us  make. ' ' 
Does  this  not  imply  separate  intelligences  and 
wills?  If  God  made  the  word,  to  create  requires 
an  exercise  of  will.  If  there  was  but  one  will  acting, 
then  the  plural  has  no  meaning. 

Again,  we  read  that  God  sent  his  Son  into  the 
world.  To  send,  where  an  intelligent  agent  is  con- 
cerned, implies  the  action  of  two  wills  when  the 
agent  responds  and  comes. 

Again,  it  is  taught  that  Christ  came  to  do  the 
Father's  will.  His  descent  from  heaven  was  for 
this  purpose.  Clearly  this  implies  that  it  was  the 
Father's  will  that  he  should  come  and  that  the  Son 
obeyed  that  will  and  came.  This  is  all  unmeaning 
if  the  will  of  the  Son  is  not  distinct  from  that  of 
the  Father. 

Biirney. — l<  A  man  with  three  heads  would  be  a 
monster,  and  a  man  with  three  wills  a  maniac."- 
Cumberland  Presbyterian,  February  9,  1888. 

Comment. — i.  We  are  surprised  that  any  theolo- 
gian should  gravely  put  this  forth  as  in  any  sense 
an  objection  or  argument  against  the  doctrine. 
A  rabid  skeptic,  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
church,  might  be  excused,  on  the  score  of  his 
ignorance,  for  such  a  parody,  but  that  a  trained 
theologian  should  advance  it  is  almost  incredible. 

2.  UA  man  with  three  heads  would  be  a  mon- 
ster." Yes,  and  so  would  a  man  with  four  feet. 
But  a  horse  without  four  feet  would  be  a  monster. 
The  fallacy  is  that  he  applies  his  reasoning-  to  man. 


THE  TRINITY.  377 

Again,  it  is  not  three  heads  that  is  in  question, 
but  three  wills.  His  objection  could  only  have 
force  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  that  God 
had  a  material  body,  with  three  heads.  But  as  no 
one  so  teaches,  it  is  wide  of  the  mark.  All  mate- 
rial conceptions  must  be  banished  when  we  contem- 
plate the  Deity. 

3.  "A  man  with  three  wills  a  maniac."  Not  of 
necessity.  If  each  will  had  its  own  appropriate 
sphere  of  manifestation,  and  they  were  always  in 
harmony,  there  would  be  no  madness.  Dr.  Bur- 
ney's  thought  was  of  three  wills  in  conflict,  or 
without  any  channel  for  separate  action.  In  other 
words,  three  wills  and  their  necessary  sets  of  facul- 
ties, in  a  material  body.  And  again  it  is  not  a 
question  of  a  man — a  finite  being — with  three 
wills,  but  of  the  Deity — of  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead. 

Material  and  mental  conceptions  drawn  from  his 
own  experience  are  the  foundation  of  the  difficulties 
he  conjures  up.  The  idea  of  a  set  of  faculties,  such 
as  men  possess,  existing  in  the  Godhead,  is  an 
absurdity.  As  we  have  already  shown  by  the  ex- 
tract from  R.  F.  Underwood,  in  Chapter  II.,  it  is  a 
fruitful  cause  of  error  to  think  of  God  as  reasoning. 
We  must  take  a  broader  view  of  the  divine  intelli- 
gence than  that.  We  must  remember  that  God  is 
infinite,  and  that,  therefore,  he  exists  as  a  pure  in- 
telligence, incomprehensible  to  us  with  our  finite 
and  limited  ideas.  Then,  we  may  grasp  the  truth 
of  three  persons — real  persons — in  the  Godhead 
existing,  as  a  trinity,  without  being  required  to 


378  ATONEMENT. 

believe    that    this    means   three   heads   upon   one 
body,  or  madness. 

The  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  persons  (and  not  of 
offices),  existing  in  union  as  one  God,  has  been  the 
faith  of  the  church  in  all  ages.  This  belief  is  sub- 
stantially expressed  by  Augustine,  who  says : 

' '  This  Trinity  is  one  God ;  .  .  .  .  nor  do  we  say, 
with  the  Sabellian  heretics,  that  it  is  only  nomi- 
nally a  Trinity,  and  has  no  real  distinction  of  per- 
sons."— City  of  God,  chapter  x. 

From  the  Apostolic  Fathers  until  Augustine,  the 
three  persons  are  constantly  distinguished,  while 
their  unity  as  one  God,  together  with  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  is  always  affirmed.  It  is  simply  impos- 
sible for  any  one  to  read  the  Fathers  without 
knowing  that  they  believed  in  a  trinity  of  persons. 
A  few  quotations  only  can  be  given  here. 

"He  did  not,  as  one  might  have  imagined,  send 
to  men  any  servant,  or  angel,  or  ruler,  or  any  one 
of  those  who  bear  sway  over  earthly  things,  or  one 
of  those  to  whom  the  government  of  things  in  the 
heavens  has  been  intrusted,  but  the  very  Creator 
and  Fashioner  of  all  things." — Epistle  to  Diogne- 
tus,  chapter  vii. 

( '  Wherefore  also  I  praise  thee  for  all  things,  I 
bless  thee,  I  glorify  thee,  along  with  the  everlast- 
ing and  heavenly  Jesus  Christ,  thy  beloved  Son, 
with  whom,  to  thee,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  glory 
both  now  and  to  all  coming  ages." — The  dying 
prayer  of  Poly  carp,  Epistle  of  Church  at  Smyrna, 
chapter  xiv. 


THE  TRINITY.  379 

"  God  himself  being  manifested  in  human  form." 
— Ignatius,  Epistle  to  Ephesians,  chapter  xix. 

' '  Reverting  to  the  Scriptures,  I  shall  endeavor 
to  persuade  you  that  he  who  is  said  to  have  appeared 
to  Abraham,  and  to  Jacob,  and  to  Moses,  and  who 
is  called  God,  is  distinct  from  him  who  made  all 
things — numerically,  I  mean,  not  [distinct]  in  will. 
For  I  affirm  that  he  has  never  at  any  time  done  any 
thing  which  he  who  made  the  world — above  whom 
there  is  no  other  God — has  not  wished  him  both  to 
do  and  to  engage  himself  with." — -Justin  Martyr, 
Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chapter  Ivi. 

"And  that  you  may  not  change  [the  sense  of] 
the  words  just  quoted,  and  repeat  what  your 
teachers  assert — either  that  God  said  to  himself, 
*  Let  us  make, '  ....  or  that  God  spoke  to  the 
elements,  to  wit,  the  earth  and  other  similar  sub- 
stances out  of  which  we  believe  man  was  formed, 
'  L,et  us  make ' — I  shall  quote  again  the  words  nar- 
rated by  Moses  himself,  from  which  we  can  indis- 
putably learn  that  [God]  conversed  with  some  one 
who  was  numerically  distinct  from  himself,  and 
also  a  rational  being.  These  are  the  words  :  c  And 
God  said,  Behold,  Adam  has  become  as  one  of  us." — 
Justin  Martyr,  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  chapter  Ixii. 

"All  types  of  the  Trinity,  of  God,  and  his  word, 
and  his  wisdom." — Theophilus  to  Antolycus,  chap- 
ter xv. 

This  last  passage  is  interesting  because  it  is  the 
first  time  we  find  the  word  Trinity  (Tpcddoz,  Tri- 
ados)  used  in  history. 


380  ATONEMENT. 

Theophilus  of  Antioch  was  born  within  twenty 
years  of  the  death  of  John,  and  as  he  uses  the  word 
as  if  it  were'  in  common  use,  it  gives  almost  apos- 
tolic authority  for  the  use  of  the  word. 

By  wisdom  he  means  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  indi- 
cates a  trinity  of  persons. 

The  earliest  discussions  were  with  Jews,  and 
these  Jewish  arguments  at  last  found  formal  expres- 
sion in  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius.  This  led  to  fuller 
statements  of  the  faith  of  the  church.  Thus, 
Novatian  combats  Sabellianism  as  a  new  heresy  in 
the  church,  and  in  his  argument  says  : 

u  But  from  this  occasion  of  Christ  being  proved 
from  the  sacred  authority  of  the  divine  writings 
not  man  only,  but  God  also,  other  heretics,  break- 
ing forth,  contrive  to  impair  the  religious  position 
in  Christ;  by  this  very  fact  wishing  to  show  that 
Christ  is  God  the  Father,  in  that  he  is  asserted  to 
be  not  man  only,  but  also  is  declared  to  be  God. 
For  thus  say  they,  If  it  is  asserted  that  God  is  one, 
and  Christ  is  God,  then  say  they,  If  the  Father  and 
Christ  be  one  God,  Christ  will  be  called  the  Father. 
Wherein  they  are  proved  to  be  in  error,  not  know- 
ing Christ,  but  following  the  sound  of  a  name;  for 
they  are  not  willing  that  he  should  be  the  second 
person  after  the  Father,  but  the  Father  himself. "- 
Novatian,  Treatise  Concerning  the  Trinity,  chapter 
xx  vi. 

Novatian  then  quotes  many  texts  from  both  Old 
and  New  Testaments  in  proof  of  the  distinction  of 
the  persons,  closing  the  argument  by  saying : 


THE  TRINITY.  381 

'  'And  what  can  be  so  evident  proof  that  this  is 
not  the  Father,  but  the  Son,  as  that  he  is  set  forth 
as  being  obedient  to  God  the  Father,  unless,  if  he  be 
believed  to  be  God  the  Father,  Christ  may  be  said 
to  be  subjected  to  another  God  the  Father." 

As  it  is  the  essence  of  Sabellianism  that  the 
Father  and  Son  are  the  same  person  under  different 
manifestations,  he  then  examines  such  texts  as  are 
supposed  to  teach  this  identity.  We  close  this 
brief  historical  sketch  with  his  exposition  of  John 
x.  30,  which  is  the  best  exegesis  of  this  text  given 
by  the  Fathers : 

u  But  when  he  says  I,  and  afterward  introduces 
the  Father  by  saying  '  I  and  the  Father, '  he  severs 
and  distinguishes  the  peculiarities  of  his,  that  is, 
the  Son's  person,  from  the  paternal  authority,  not 
only  in  respect  to  the  sound  of  the  name,  but  more- 
over in  respect  of  the  order  of  the  distribution  of 
power,  since  he  might  have  said,  'I  the  Father,'  if 
he  had  had  it  in  mind  that  he  himself  was  the 
Father.  And  since  he  said  '  one '  thing,  let  the 
heretics  understand  that  he  did  not  say  '  one '  per- 
son. For  one,  placed  in  the  neuter,  intimates  the 
social  concord,  not  the  personal  unity.  He  is  said 
to  be  one  netiter,  not  one  masculine,  because  the 
expression  is  not  referred  to  the  number,  but  it  is 
declared  with  reference  to  the  association  of  another. 
Finally,  he  adds,  and  says,  'we  are,'  not  'I  am/ 
so  as  to  show,  by  the  fact  of  his  saying,  *  I  and  the 
Father  are,'  that  they  are  two  persons." — Nova- 
tian,  Concerning  the  Trinity,  chapter  xxvii. 


382 


ATONEMENT. 


For  sixteen  centuries  the  doctrines  of  Sabellius 
have  been  rejected  by  the  piety  and  scholarship  of 
the  church,  and  it  is  too  late  to  resurrect  them  and 
the  view  of  the  atonement  with  which  they  are 
logically  associated,  with  any  hope  that  they  will 
be  received,  even  when  labeled  u  new  theology." 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

On  a  careful  examination  of  Dr.  Burney 's  book, 
the  vulnerable  points  are  legion.  A  large  num- 
ber of  these  have  been  passed  by  because  they 
have  been  touched  upon  already,  or  because  they 
are  mere  side  issues,  or  are  connected  with  theories 
that  we  have  no  sympathy  with. 

There  are,  however,  some  not  directly  connected 
with  the  subjects  of  previous  chapters,  that  are  of 
sufficient  importance  in  the  controversy  to  demand 
an  examination. 

SECTION  I. — Burney  on  the  Prodigal  Son. 

Burney. — "  The  prodigal's  repentance,  as  evinced 
by  his  actual  return  to  his  father,  was,  as  to  him- 
self, reconciliation;  as  to  his  father,  it  was  propitia- 
tion, or  what  pleased  him,  satisfied  him,  delighted 
him,  because  it  brought  back  to  him  his  son  who 
was  lost  and  dead,  but  now  found  and  saved." — 
Page  156. 

Comment. — i.  This  teaches  that  all  that  is  re- 
quired for  salvation  is  repentance,  and  that  repent- 
ance is  that  which  propitiates  the  Father.  True 
that  he  teaches  elsewhere  the  need  of  something 
more,  but  it  is  in  a  vague,  unsatisfactory  way. 


384  ATONEMENT. 

Here   it   is   repentance   alone.     This  is  consistent 
with  his  theory. 

2.  But  if  repentance  propitiates,  salvation  is  by 
works  and  human  merit.     As  God   could   not   be 
pleased  with  what  has  no  merit,  the  repentance,  in 
order  to  propitiate,  must  have  been  meritorious  in 
his  sight.     Clearly  salvation  by  works. 

3.  If  the  repentance  propitiates,  there  is  no  need 
for  the  death  of  Christ,  other  than  as  it  may  influ- 
ence the  heart  and  mind  of  the  sinner.     This  is  all 
that  a  Moral  Theory  can  make  of  Christ's  death 
and  sufferings. 

4.  Propitiation  is  here  made  synonymous  with 
what  pleases,  or  delights.     As  Dr.  Burney  repudi- 
ates the  dictionaries,  an  appeal  to  them  would  be 
useless.     The  only  appeal  that  can  be  made  from 
the  dictionaries  is  to  usage.     Dr.  Burney  appealed 
from   the   lexicons   to   ' '  the   crucible   of  common 
sense"  (page  162),  but  failed  to  tell  us  just  how  to 
find    this    tribunal.     We    deny    that   the    Hebrew 
kaphar,  the  Greek  hilasmos,  or  the  English  propiti- 
ation, are  ever  used  in  the  sense  of  ' '  please ' '  or 
"delight."     Dr.  Burney  can  never  induce  scholars 
to    agree    to    abandon    the    dictionaries   until   he 
shows  by  the  usage  that  the  dictionaries  are  wrong. 

Burney. — "These  facts  also  teach  us  with  suffi- 
cient fullness  and  clearness  that  pardon  does  not 
consist,  as  penalists  teach,  in  the  removal  of  penalty, 
leaving  the  soul  in  its  moral  pollution  or  criminal 
state.  A  murderer  may  be  arbitrarily  pardoned  by 
gubernatorial  fiat.  This  releases  him  from  the 
gallows,  but  not  from  his  guilt;  but  pardon  of  sin 


MISCELLANEOUS.  385 

consists  in  deliverance  from  the  guilt  itself  which 
causes  the  punishment.  This  is  done  simply  by 
restoring  the  disobedient  to  obedience,  much  like 
the  removal  of  effects  by  the  removal  of  their 
causes." — Page  157. 

Comment. — i.  This  definition  of  "pardon" 
will  necessitate  that  Dr.  Burney  shall  once  more 
repudiate  the  dictionaries,  because  none  of  them 
define  pardon  as  he  does.  We  venture  the  asser- 
tion that  no  one  would  get  from  the  word  pardon 
the  idea  of  deliverance  from  depravity.  Nor  can 
Dr.  Burney  find  such  a  use  of  the  word  in  any  book, 
ancient  or  modern,  Greek,  Hebrew,  or  English. 
He  simply  gives  new  meanings  to  old  words,  and 
thus  tries  to  uphold  his  theory.  Any  theory,  no 
matter  how  wild  or  visionary,  could  be  established 
thus. 

2.  This  utter  repudiation  of  the  legal  aspect  of 
pardon  might  well  lead  to  the  inquiry,  Why  has 
God  selected  words  having  this  forensic  or  legal 
sense,  if  he  did  not  mean  to  teach  the  legal  aspect 
of  atonement?  The  inspired  writers  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  used  terms  that  set  forth  legal  ideas 
more  forcibly  than  those  they  do  employ.  Surely 
they  made  no  mistake,  and  we  are  justified  in 
believing  that  there  is  a  legal  as  well  as  a  moral 
side  to  the  atonement,  and  that  ' l  pardon  ' '  belongs 
to  the  legal. 

SECTION  II. — Burney  on  the  offering  of  Isaac. 

Burney. — u  The  atonement  is  the  giving  of  the 
blood,  or  life,   to   God.     The   blood   and   life   are 
26 


386  ATONEMENT. 

equivalents.  To  give  one  was  in  intention  to  give 
both.  Hence,  the  bloodless  sacrifice  of  Isaac." — 
Page  1 68. 

Comment. — What  the  Doctor  says  about  the 
offering  of  Isaac  is  contained  in  this  one  sentence; 
but,  taken  in  connection  with  what  precedes  it,  it 
teaches  that  Isaac  was  actually  and  personally 
offered  up  by  Abraham,  and,  therefore,  it  is  possi- 
ble to  have  a  burnt-offering  without  the  shedding 
of  any  blood. 

Is  there  any  authority  for  such  a  statement  ? 
Can  it  be  inferred  from  Bible  facts?  Most  cer- 
tainly not,  and  the  whole  narrative  would  have  to 
be  ignored  in  every  detail  of  it,  before  such  an 
assumption  could  be  received. 

1.  The  only  foundation  for  his  assumption  is  the 
; statement  that  the  blood  and  life  are  equivalents. 
This  is  the  opposite  of  the  fact.     Blood  shedding 
and  death  are  synonymous,  which  is  fatal  to  the 
thought  of  a  bloodless  sacrifice. 

2.  There  can  be  no  dispute  as  to  the  fact  that 
Abraham  regarded  the  command  to  go  and  offer  up 
Isaac  as  involving  the  death  of  the  boy.     Not  to 
refer  to  the  wood  provided   for  burning  the  body, 
and  other  facts  out  of  harmony  with  the  thought 
of  a  bloodless  sacrifice,  the  Bible  plainly  affirms  it. 

"And  Abraham  stretched  forth  his  hand,  and 
took  the  knife  to  slay  his  son." — Gen.  xxii.  10. 

4  *  By  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  tried,  offered 
up  Isaac;  and  he  that  had  received  the  promises 
offered  up  his  only  begotten  son,  of  whom  it  was 


MISCELLANEOUS.  387 

said,  that  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called; 
accounting  that  God  was  able  to  raise  him  up,  even 
from  the  dead ;  from  whence  also  he  received  him 
in  a  figttre." — Heb.  xi.  17-19. 

Abraham  had  evidently  never  heard  of  a  non- 
penal  theory,  nor  had  he  been  taught  that  blood 
and  life  were  equivalents,  and  that  he  could  offer 
Isaac  and  still  not  slay  the  boy,  else  his  soul  had 
never  been  tried.  God  had  told  him  that  Isaac 
should  be  the  ancestor  of  the  Messiah,  and  he 
believed  what  God  said.  In  what  way  could  his 
faith  have  been  tried,  if  the  command  did  not  im- 
ply the  death  of  Isaac,  and  so  the  putting  a  barrier 
in  the  way  of  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  ? 

3.  If  Abraham  expected  to  slay  Isaac,  but  did 
not,  and  yet,  in  the  language  of  Paul,  "offered  up 
Isaac,"  how  did  he  offer  him?  The  key  to  this 
is  indicated  by  the  words  "in  a  figure." 

*  'And  Abraham  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  looked, 
and  behold  behind  him  a  ram  caught  in  a  thicket 
by  his  horns;  and  Abraham  went  and  took  the 
ram,  and  offered  him  up  for  a  burnt-offering  in  the 
stead  of  his  son." — Gen.  xxii.  13. 

The  narrative  shows  that  Isaac  was  not  offered 
up  personally,  but  that  the  ram  was  offered  in  his 
stead.  So  far  from  its  being  a  bloodless  sacrifice, 
we  have,  fully  stated,  the  fact  of  the  shedding  of  the 
blood!  It  is  a  simple  case  of  substitution,  that 
throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  meaning  of  a  sac- 
rifice. This  substitutionary  offering  is  called  by 
Paul  the  offering  of  Isaac.  But  Dr.  Burney's 


388  ATONEMENT. 

"  color  blindness  "  as  to  substitution  leads  him  to 
ignore  the  ram,  so  that  he  sees  nothing  but  a 
"  bloodless  sacrifice." 

SECTION  III. — Burney  on  the  prayer  of  Jesus  on 
the  cross. 

Burney. — "Luke  xxiii.  34:  'Father,  forgive 
them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do, '  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  assumption  that  he  suffered  penalty. 

"If  substitution  is  true,  Christ  by  enduring  the 
penalty  in  the  place  of  sinners  did  by  that  act 
really  expiate,  pardon,  take  away  the  reatus  poence 
of  those  for  whom  he  suffered,  and  did  by  that 
expiation  or  pardon  bring  God  under  obligations  to 
regenerate  and  save  them. 

"Now,  if  this  is  true,  why  this  prayer?  Why 
pray  for  the  doing  of  a  thing  that  is  already  done  ? 
Why  ask  a  creditor  to  forgive  a  debt  that  is  already 
paid,  and  which  of  course  does  not  exist?  The 
theory  takes  all  significance  and  pertinence  out  of 
this  prayer  which  when  rightly  interpreted  is  a 
peerless  exhibition  of  moral  sublimity  and  a  model 
for  .the  world." — Page  221. 

Comment. — i.  Even  the  most  rigid  Calvinist 
could  answer  Burney  by  referring  to  the  fact  that 
at  the  time  Christ  prayed  the  debt  had  not  been 
paid,  as  Christ  had  not  suffered  or  died. 

2.  He  has  u  pardon"  introduced  here  in  strange 
company — "expiation  or  pardon."  We  would 
like  to  see  some  of  these  words  pinned  down  to  a 
definite  meaning.  Then,  again,  he  assumes  that 
if  sin  is  expiated  God  would  be  under  obligations 
to  regenerate  and  save.  Can  he  show  that  this 
logically  follows  ? 


MISCELLANEOUS.  389 

3.  Whatever  force  there  might  be  in  this  argu- 
ment, it  can  only  be  against  the  Calvinistic  theory 
of  substitution.     Dr.  Burney  denies  that  any  thing 
else  is  substitution,  and  his  readers  need  to  be  con- 
stantly reminded  of  this  in  the  application  of  his 
arguments.    This  is  one  of  the  Doctor's  weaknesses 
— giving  new  meanings  to  old  words.     In  the  theo- 
logical world  the  term   substitution  is  used  with 
a   much   wider   application   than   he   gives   to   it. 
This  being  its  recognized  use,  it  is  idle  to  deny 
that  any  thing  else  is  substitution.     We   can  not 
take  from  a  word  a  recognized  meaning,  and  use 
alone   fixes   the   meaning.     Burney  has   therefore 
undertaken  the  impossible.     He  suggests  "salva- 
tion by  sovereign  prerogative  "  and  u  benefaction  " 
as  better  terms.     But  as  all  salvation  by  grace  is 
benefaction  and  by  ' '  sovereign  prerogative, ' '  there 
is  nothing  clear-cut  or  distinctive  in  these.     They 
are  open  to  more  serious  objection  than  the  word 
he  would  have  them  supplant,  and,  it  may  be  safely 
said,  will  never  be  adopted.     Substitution  will  be 
used  centuries  after  we  are  dead.     The  theory  of 
this  book  is  as  truly  vicarious  as  the  Calvinistic, 
and  against  the  "medium  theory"  Burney's  objec- 
tions do  not  apply. 

4.  The  dying  prayer  of  Jesus  is  "irreconcilable" 
with  the  non-penal  theory.     It  is  fundamental  to 
that  theory  that  sin   and  penalty  are  inseparable. 
Dr.  Burney  says : 

UI  have  elsewhere  and  repeatedly  defined  pen- 
alty of  any  divine  law  to  be  the  forfeiture  or  loss  of 
the  good  which  the  law  is  intended  to  conserve.  If 

27 


390  ATONEMENT. 

this  is  true,  how  is  it  possible  to  transgress  God's 
laws,  and  yet  escape  the  penalties  he  has  wisely 
affixed  to  transgression?" — Page  117. 

If  so,  there  being  no  escape  from  the  penalty, 
sins  committed  are  always  punished,  and  Dr. 
Burney  is  in  exactly  the  same  position  as  the  Cal- 
vinist,  with  this  difference  :  Dr.  Burney's  principal 
suffers  the  penalty,  but  the  Calvinist's  substitute 
endures  it.  In  both  cases  the  debt  is  paid. 

The  prayer  of  Jesus,  according  to  Burney,  is  a 
prayer  for  God  to  forgive  them,  after  they  have 
been  punished  ! 

If  this  is  what  he  means  by  u  moral  sublimity," 
we  can  not  agree  with  his  conception  of  what  is 
"peerless." 

Destroy  substitution,  and  the  light  and  beauty  of 
the  cross  fade  away.  It  is  only  in  the  light  of  his 
sufferings  being  vicarious  that  the  height  and 
depth  and  moral  glory  of  this  dying  prayer  can  be 
apprehended. 

Burney. — "  Penalty  endured  by  the  principal  of 
a  crime  is  purely  infamous,  nor  could  it  be  less  so 
in  the  substitute,  if  penal  substitution  was  pos- 
sible," etc. — Page  223. 

Comment. — i.  This  is  one  of  those  glittering 
generalities  that  may  mean  something  or  nothing. 
4 *  Penalty  endured  ....  is  simply  infamous."  Is 
this  true  ?  If  it  was  infamous  to  "  endure  "  a  pen- 
alty, it  is  right  to  resist  the  lawful  authorities  when 
attempting  to  inflict  it.  No  man  can  be  required 
to  submit  to  the  infamous. 


MISCELLANEOUS.  391 

2.  This  logically  makes  God  responsible  for  the 
infamy,  for  the  logical   alternative  is  that  there  is 
no  infamy  if  the  penalty  is  not  endured.     If  it  is 
the   penalty  that   makes   infamous,   then,   as   God 
inflicts  it,  he  is  responsible  for  it. 

3.  While  this  is  what  Burney  says,  it  can  hardly 
be  what  he  means — at  least  we  hope  so.     We  sus- 
pect it  is  only  a  new  form  of  the  old  quibble  that 
you  can  not  separate  the  demerit  from  the  penalty. 
Does  it  render  a  man   infamous  who  pays  (endures) 
a  fine  for  his  friend  to  save  him  from  prison  ? 

SECTION  IV. — Burney'*  s  contrasts  of  the  penal 
and  non-penal  theories. 

Burney. — "Truth  and  error  are  generally  more 
clearly  apprehended  and  discriminated  when  set  in 
contrast  with  each  other." — Page  191. 

Comment. — Yes,    but    it    does   not   follow   that 
when  two  statements  are  contrasted  either  one  o 
the  other  must  be  true.     Nor  does  it  follow  that 
the  one  seemingly  the  weakest  is  therefore  an  error. 
There  is  such  a  thing  as  so  presenting  the  views  o 
an  opponent  as  to  easily  refute  them.     We  call  this 
' '  setting  up  a  man  of  straw. " 

Burney. — u  i.  The  penal  theory  asserts  that 
Christ's  death  was  a  penal  sacrifice  —  made  pri- 
marily to  satisfy  justice,  as  the  most  central  attri- 
bute of  God,  '  to  satisfy  which  is  to  satisfy  God 
himself.' 

"The  non-penal  theory  denies  and  alleges  that 
this  sacrifice  was  primarily  purely  moral  in  charac- 
ter, and  satisfies  justice,  because  it  serves  God's 


392  ATONEMENT. 

purposes  in  meeting  the  exigencies  of  man's  moral 
and  religions  condition." — Page  191. 

Comment. — i.  This  is  not  a  satisfactory  state- 
ment of  what  the  penal  theory  teaches.  If  meant 
to  represent  what  Anselm  taught,  we  have  no  fault 
to  find,  except  that  he  should  have  said,  "The 
penal  theory,  as  taught  by  Anselm,  asserts,"  etc. 
To  take  the  extreme  utterances  of  some  advocate, 
and  represent  them  as  the  teaching  of  the  theory,  is 
not  a  fair  representation.  Very  few  substitutionists, 
even  of  the  most  extreme  Calvinistic  school,  would 
agree  with  Anselm  that  justice  was  "the  most  cen- 
tral attribute  of  God. ' '  Dr.  Burney  not  only  ignores 
any  other  theory  of  substitution  but  the  Calvinistic, 
but  he  ignores  any  other  exposition  of  even  that, 
except  Anselm's.  If  he  intended  his  contrast  to  be 
comprehensive,  embracing  all  schools  of  substitu- 
tionists, it  should  have  been : 

"The  penal  theory  asserts  that  Christ's  death 
was  a  penal  sacrifice  —  made  primarily  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  God  against  the  sinner.'' 

Substitutionists  differ  as  to  the  source  of  this 
demand,  some  holding  that  it  arises  from  the  divine 
justice;  others,  from  the  holiness  of  God;  arid  still 
others,  from  the  law. 

2.  The  last  clause  of  Burney's  definition  of  what 
the  non-penal  theory  teaches — "and  satisfies  just- 
ice, because  it  serves  God's  purposes  in  meeting 
the  exigencies  of  man's  moral  and  religious  con- 
dition"—  is  not  distinctive,  as  any  substitutionist 
would  subscribe  to  it  in  full.  The  only  part  of  the 


MISCELLANEOUS.  393 

statement  distinctive  to  the  non-penal  theory  is 
found  in  the  words  ' l  primarily  purely  moral  in 
character."  According  to  the  theory  of  the  book, 
we  are  saved  by  the  removal  of  the  depravity,  and 
that  is  what  he  means  by  ' '  moral. ' '  But  if  we 
give  to  the  word  this  meaning,  a  moral  sacrifice  is 
a  pure  absurdity.  If  the  death  and  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  for  the  purpose  of  removing  depravity, 
we  may  look  upon  the  idea  of  one  man  drinking 
poison  and  another  experiencing  its  effects  as  no 
longer  an  impossibility.  Its  parallel  would  be 
found  in  a  physician  committing  suicide  to  cure  a 
patient  of  disease! 

The  whole  trouble  with  Dr.  Burney's  non-penal 
theory  is  that  it  denies  in  toto  the  legal  aspect  of 
Christ's  death,  and  the  legal,  or  administrative, 
penalties  of  sin.  The  death  of  Christ  is  the  one 
fact  utterly  out  of  harmony  with  the  non-penal 
scheme. 

Burney. — u  2.  The  penal  teaches  as  its  ground 
principle  that  all  pardon  is  the  result  of  punish- 
ment; that  there  is  absolutely  no  pardon  without 
prior  punishment  as  its  ground  and  reason. 

"The  non-penal  protests,  and  alleges  that  sins 
pardoned  are  not  punished,  and  sins  punished  are 
not  pardoned;  that  pardon  is  exemption  from  pun- 
ishment on  conditions  satisfactory  to  the  pardoning 
power."— Page  192. 

Comment. — i.  This  statement  of  what  the  penal 
teaches  is  not  true,  because  many  substitutionists 
reject  it.  It  is  no  part  of  a  vicarious  theory  of 
atonement.  A  true  statement  embracing  what  all 
substitutionists  believe  would  be  : 


394  ATONEMENT. 

'  The  penal  theory  teaches  as  its  ground  principle 
that  all  pardon  is  the  result  of  satisfaction;  that 
there  is  absolutely  no  pardon  without  prior  satisfac- 
tion as  its  ground  and  reason." 

2.  The  non-penal  theory  has  no  pardon,  if  we  ac- 
cept Dr.  Burney's  definition  above,  for,  on  his  theory, 
there  is  no  exemption  from  punishment.  He  says: 

u  Sin  and  its  punishment  are  coterminous,  just 
as  cause  and  effect. ' ' 

Burney. — "3.  The  penal  teaches  that  Christ's 
death  propitiates  only  because  it  was  a  punishment 
for  the  sins  of  mankind. 

"The  non-penal  denies  that  there  is  any  propitia- 
tion in  penal  suffering,  and  affirms  that  Christ  has 
become  through  his  death  and  resurrection  the 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world." — Page  192. 

Comment. — i.  The  penal  teaches  that  Christ's 
death  propitiates  because  it  satisfies  the  demand  of 
God  against  the  sinner.  Dr.  Burney  fails  to  dis- 
tinguish between  burnt-offering  and  the  sin-offering. 

2.  Burney  tells  us  what  the  non-penal  denies — 
this  is  distinctive.  But  when  he  states  what  it  af- 
firms, his  readers  are  misled,  because  he  leaves  the 
impression  that  in  this  it  is  in  contrast  to  the  penal. 
Yet  every  substitutionist  believes  what  is  here  af- 
firmed. The  penal  theory  tells  how  he  became  the 
propitiation,  the  non-penal  is  mute. 

Burney. — "4.  The  penal  teaches  in  its  only  self- 
consistent  form  that  Christ  obeyed  the  divine  law  in 
man's  stead,  and  thus  satisfied  justice  in  man's  be- 
half, and  that  God,  as  an  act  of  justice,  regenerates 
and  saves  men. 


MISCELLANEOUS.  395 

' '  The  non-penal  protests,  and  affirms  that  it  is 
impossible  for  one  person  to  obey  the  moral  law — 
or  to  love  God — in  the  room  of  another,  and  to 
suffer  its  penalty  (which  is  the  consequence  of  not 
loving  him)  in  the  place  of  another;  that  Christ 
obeyed  the  divine  law  in  his  own  place;  that  his 
personal  righteousness  or  obedience  is  imparted  to 
believers,  in  the  act  of  believing,  as  was  Adani's 
vitiated  nature  and  consequent  condemnation  im- 
parted to  us  by  heredity." — Page  192. 

Comment.— i.  This  is  a  cool  setting  aside  of 
every  vicarious  theory  as  unworthy  of  notice — a 
ruling  of  them  out  of  court  except  the  most 
extreme  and  obnoxious  Calvinistic  form  of  substi- 
tution. We  appeal  from  Dr.  Burney  to  our  readers, 
as  to  the  "self-consistency"  of  the  theory  of  this 
book.  It  is  certainly  not  chargeable  with  what  is 
here  stated  as  being  the  penal  theory. 

2.  Dr.  Burney  here  admits  that  the  double  impu- 
tation of  the  Calvinistic  theory  is  "self-consistent," 
when  his  great  guns  are  aimed  at  this  very  thing 
as  a  contradiction.     For  Dr.  Burney  to  speak  of  it 
as  the  ' '  only  self-consistent  form  "  is  to  make  his 
own  arguments  any  thing  but  "self-consistent." 

3.  The  non-penal  theory,  as  here  stated,  is  open 
to  many  and  serious  objections.     It  confounds  con- 
sequence and  penalty.     It  uses  legal  terms,  while 
denying   the   legal   aspect   of    the   atonement.     It 
presents  an  absurdity  when  it  speaks  of  personal 
obedience  being  imparted. 

Burney.  —  "5.   The  penal  teaches  that  to  suffer 

the  penalty  of  the  law  is  to  obey  the  law 

"The  non-penal  objects,  and  affirms  ....   that 


396  ATONEMENT. 

there  is  no  obedience  in  penalty,  ....  or,  if  there 
is,  ....  Satan  and  his  hosts  are  as  truly  obeying 
the  divine  law  as  are  the  saints  in  heaven." — Page 
193- 

Comment. — So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  all  Cal- 
vinistic  writers  distinguish  between,  the  u active" 
and  "passive"  obedience  of  Christ.  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge  thus  explains  it : 

' '  His  '  active  '  obedience  embraces  his  entire  life 
and  death  viewed  as  vicarious  obedience.  His 
'  passive y  obedience  embraces  his  entire  life,  and 
especially  his  sacrificial  death,  viewed  as  vicarious 
suffering." 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  are  technical  terms, 
used  in  a  theological  sense  only,  and  that  the  word 
obedience  is  used,  not  as  connected  with  penalty, 
but  with  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  because  they 
were  voluntarily  assumed.  It  is  used  in  the  same 
sense  as  "became  obedient  unto  death" — volun- 
tarily submitted  to  death.  While  we  repudiate  this 
distinction,  we  believe  that  Burney  has  not  fairly 
represented  the  Calvinistic  position.  We  doubt  if 
any  theologian  would  assent  to  the  statement  that 
' '  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  to  obey  the  law. " 
What  penalist  has  so  affirmed  ?  But,  leaving  the 
question  of  this  Calvinistic  distinction,  most  cer- 
tainly the  theory  of  this  book  does  not  so  teach. 

SECTION  V. — Burney  on  the  salvation  of  infants. 

Burney. — "Unless  it  [the  infant]  has  the  mind 
of  Christ,  it  is  none  of  his.  This  it  can  not  have 


MISCELLANEOUS.  397 

except  by  being  made  partaker  of  Christ's  nature 
in  regeneration.  If  this  regeneration  is  uncondi- 
tional, it  seems  hard  to  escape  the  doctrine  of  a 

necessitated  virtue  or  obedience I  think, 

however,  that  conditional  infant  regeneration  is  not 
an  impossible  or  absurd  thing. — Page  58. 

Comment. — i.  Why  does  Dr.  Burney  say  "the 
mind  of  Christ  ?  ' '  The  Bible  says  : 

"If  any  man  have  not  the  SPIRIT  of  Christ,  he 
is  none  of  his." — Rom.  viii.  9. 

Why  does  he  substitute  "mind"  for  "Spirit?" 
They  are  certainly  not  synonymous. 

The  Greek  pneuma  (spirit)  is  never  translated  in 
the  New  Testament  by  the  word  "mind."  In  the 
text  he  quotes  from  Romans,  the  whole  context 
shows  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  meant. 

Just  here  we  would  say  that  we  have  been  deeply 
impressed  with  the  little  use  Dr.  Burney  has  for 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  his  non-penal  theory.  In  a 
work  on  the  atonement  of  four  hundred  pages, 
more  than  three  hundred  are  written  before  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  named,  while  in  the  whole  book  it  is 
only  referred  to  about  half  a  dozen  times!  Has  the 
non-penal  theory  no  use  for  the  Holy  Spirit?  The 
Holy  Spirit's  work  in  connection  with  the  atone- 
ment is  all-important,  as  we  have  shown.  Dr.  A. 
A.  Hodge  has  a  chapter  devoted  to  the  "mystic 
union ' '  in  his  work  on  the  atonement.  This  is 
utterly  ignored  by  Dr.  Burney  in  "  Soteriology. " 
The  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement  has  not  been 
apprehended  when  this  is  overlooked.  If  Dr.  Burney 
fully  apprehends  the  theory  of  substitution,  the 


398  ATONEMENT. 

absence  of  all  reference  to  this  union,  in  a  book 
assailing  substitution,  is  hard  to  understand.  How 
can  we  explain  his  utter  silence  as  to  this,  which  is 
one  of  the  most  important  factors?  This  being 
omitted,  we  regret  that  it  is  true  "  that  no  one  can 
obtain  a  fair  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  substitution  by 
reading  Soteriology. ' ' 

2.  We  believe  that  infants  must  be  regenerated 
to  fit  them  for  heaven  (if  they  die  in  infancy),  but 
do  not  see  any  difficulty  in  this  being  done  uncon- 
ditionally. 

Dr.  Burney  says  that  if  unconditional  "it  seems 
hard  to  escape  the  doctrine  of  a  necessitated  virtue 
or  obedience."  This  would  be  true  if  regenera- 
tion destroyed  freedom. 

If  an  unconditional  regeneration,  where  there  is 
no  actual  transgression,  leads  to  a  necessitated  obe- 
dience, then,  logically,  an  unconditional  depravity 
leads  to  a  necessitated  disobedience.  But  this 
Burney  does  not  believe. 

Burney. — "  i.  What  changes  actually  occur  in 
the  capacities  of  the  soul  as  the  spiritual  world 
begins  to  open  upon  the  mental  vision — whether 
the  mind  becomes  more  vigorous  and  capable  of 
clearer  apprehension  of  the  truth — we  do  not 
know. 

"But  assuming  that  such  favorable  changes  do 
occur  at  this  juncture  in  the  capacities  of  the  intel- 
lect, then,  of  course,  the  emotional  and  volitional 
power  will  be  proportionately  increased,  and  the 
voluntary  acceptance  of  Christ  becomes  possible  to 
the  infant  mind  before  it  has  left  the  body."  — 
Page  59. 


MISCELLANEOUS.  399 

Comment. — That  there  is  intellectual  expansion 
in  the  hour  of  death,  as  the  spiritual  world  opens 
to  the  vision,  we  believe;  but  something  more  than 
mental  growth  is  needed  before  faith  is  exercised. 

' '  Faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God." — Rom.  x.  14. 

"How  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they 
have  not  heard?  and  how  shall  they  hear  without 
a  preacher?" — Rom.  x.  17. 

But  the  infant  is  destitute  of  this  knowledge; 
and  as  knowledge  is  essential  to  faith,  how  can  it 
be  exercised  ?  The  nature  and  conditions  of  faith 
present  a  fatal  objection  to  this  theory. 

Burney. — "  Bat  assuming  that  no  such  advan- 
tageous changes  occur,  still  it  is  not  impossible  for 
regeneration  —  such  as  is  needed  to  fit  the  soul  for 
communion  with  Christ  —  to  occur  by  its  normal 
method. 

U2.  As  the  beatific  vision  unfolds  to  the  infant 
spirit,  unconscious  of  evil,  in  its  transit  across  the 
border  line,  it,  ere  it  leaves  the  body,  may  be 
so  enamored  of  the  loveliness  of  Christ  and  the 
heavenly  world  as  to  yield  to  him  with  all  its  will 
power  —  though  it  may  be  little  more  than  instinct 
—  and  be  filled  with  the  love  of  a  new-born  soul. 
If  it  is  not  distinctly  conscious  of  faith  in  Christ 
it  may  be  rapturously  conscious  of  a  new-born 
love,  and  love  is  bliss. " — Page  59. 

Comment. — i.  The  first  scheme  of  infant  regen- 
eration necessitates  a  false  definition  of  faith,  this 
second  "assumption"  rests  upon  a  false  theory  of 
regeneration. 

The  doctrine  of  depravity  teaches  that  the  dispo- 


400  ATONEMENT. 

sition  to  love  and  trust  the  Savior  is  lacking.  If 
Dr.  Burney's  theory  above  is  correct,  it  is  not  dis- 
position, but  want  of  light  or  evidence.  If  the 
vision  of  Jesus  will  cause  an  infant  (with  expanded 
intellect)  to  become  "enamored"  of  Christ,  why 
not  an  adult?  And  if  depravity  bars  the  way  in 
one  case,  why  not  in  the  other? 

2.  This  view  of  regeneration  ignores  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Bible  teaches  that  we 
are  "born  of  the  Spirit."  Dr.  Burney  ignores  the 
Spirit's  work  in  the  regeneration  of  the  infant 
utterly,  and  attempts  to  explain  a  supernatural 
fact  (regeneration)  by  natural  means.  More,  as  he 
says  of  this  that  it  occurs  by  "its  normal  method," 
and  fits  "the  soul  for  communion  with  Christ," 
the  logical  inference  is,  that  he  ignores  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  regeneration  of  the  adult.  How 
plainly  error  as  to  the  atonement  leads  to  error  in 
every  vital  doctrine  of  the  Bible! 

Burney. — "3.  We  know  that  very  young  chil- 
dren have  a  ready  capacity  for  the  beautiful,  and 
without  any  rational  comprehension  of  beautiful 
objects,  seek  to  appropriate  them. 

"Why,  then,  may  not  the  infant  spirit,  as  it 
approaches  the  spirit-land,  be  enamored  of  the 
loveliness  of  the  glorified  Christ,  and  seek  to 
appropriate  him  as  it  is  wont  to  do  with  other 
objects  that  delight  it?  " — Page  60. 

Comment. — If  the  first  of  Dr.  Burney's  theories 
of  infant  regeneration  requires  a  false  conception  of 
faith  and  the  second  erroneous  ideas  of  regeneration, 
this  last  embodies  a  false  notion  of  the  object  of  faith. 


MISCELLANEOUS.  401 

It  puts  Christ's  physical  beauty  in  the  place  of 
Christ  as  a  Savior.  According  to  Burney,  just  as 
the  infant  seeks  to  appropriate  a  flower  or  painted 
toy,  the  physical  beauty  of  Christ's  glorified  hu- 
manity will  attract  it  in  the  same  way.  The  appro- 
priation of  Christ  that  saves  is  not  such  as  this; 
but  from  a  sense  of  need  and  of  the  ability  and 
willingness  of  Christ  to  save,  a  heart  appropriation 
of  him  as  a  personal  Savior.  Without  convictions 
of  this  need  Christ  will  never  be  appropriated. 

Burney. — "I  do  not  offer  this  as  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  difficult  problem  of  infant  salva- 
tion. It,  however,  avoids  the  extreme  monergism 
of  Augustinianism,  on  one  hand,  and  on  the  other 
the  ungracious  notion  that  infants  may  be  saved 
without  regeneration." — Page  60. 

Comment. — i.  As  in  neither  case  have  we  the 
infant  regenerated,  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  avoid 
these  extremes,  unless  it  be  in  the  sense  that  a  man 
avoids  infringing  the  laws  of  France  who  never 
crossed  the  sea. 

2.  The  difficulty  of  the  problem  lies  in  the  non- 
penal  theory.  There  being  no  actual  transgression 
on  the  part  of  an  infant  (and  therefore  no  penalty), 
the  work  to  be  done  is  purely  moral.  But  if  the 
salvation  of  the  infant  by  moral  means  is  purely  by 
the  power  of  God,  it  would  be  an  unanswerable 
objection  to  the  non-penal  theory.  Hence  the 
difficulty. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  this  book  the  atone- 
ment is  both  moral  and  legal.  Redemption  by 


402  ATONEMENT. 

purchase  delivering  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
redemption  by  power  from  depravity  and  its  con- 
sequences. The  legal  demand  that  stands  against 
the  transgressor  has  no  place  in  the  case  of  the 
infant.  The  need,  in  the  one  case,  is  a  remedy 
both  moral  and  legal;  in  the  other  one,  purely 
moral  alone.  The  one  demands  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment, the  other  does  not.  Hence,  the  power  of 
God  alone  is  needed  in  the  case  of  the  infant.  If 
we  ignore  this  distinction  between  the  infant  and 
the  adult,  the  problem  of  infant  regeneration  is 
incapable  of  solution.  The  non  -  penal  theory 
places  them  upon  the  same  footing  exactly,  so  far 
as  the  need  and  the  character  of  the  remedy  is 
concerned. 

SECTION  VI. — Burney  on  the  harmony  of  the 
non-penal  theory  and  science. 

Burney. — "The  impartation  of  spiritual  life  not 
in  conflict  with  natural  law." — Page  364. 

Comment. — i.  We  call  attention  to  this  section 
because  running  through  it  is  the  quiet  assump- 
tion that  the  non-penal  theory  is  scientific,  while 
the  penal  is  not. 

2.  "Not  in  conflict."  Does  Dr.  Burney  affirm 
that  a  vicarious  atonement  is  ?  We  challenge  the 
proof.  As  it  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of  natural  law, 
conflict  is  impossible. 

Dr.  Burney 's  analogies  are  all  of  the  impartation 
of  spiritual  life,  and  as  we  agree  in  this,  they  are 
analogies  of  that  which  is  common  to  both  theories. 


MISCELLANEOUS. 


403 


But  he  gives  no  analogy  of  his  non-penal  theory, 
nor  can  he.  Analogies  of  substitution,  however, 
can  be  found,  especially  if  we  consult  medical 
works.  Vicarious  menstruation  is  a  term  well 
known  to  science,  and  other  illustrations  of  substi- 
tution can  be  found. 


VC  4080 1' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


